Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — RETURNED PRISONERS OF WAR (REHABILITATION)

Captain Briscoe: asked the Minister of Labour whether arrangements are being made for the rehabilitation, so far as this may be required, and for the resettlement of the large number of prisoners of war who will be returned to this country at the end of the war after having suffered long periods of confinement?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend may rest assured that all necessary steps will be taken in advance to achieve these objects, and the necessary measures are now being devised in consultation between the Departments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR (REGISTRATION ORDERS)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will publish an up-to-date list of the Orders which have been issued by his Department since the outbreak of war registering persons for entry into the Forces and Industry separately, giving the dates of such Orders, the ages of the persons involved, male and female, respectively, stating the purposes for which they were registered and the numbers who actually registered in each case?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. I am not aware that there is any general demand for a publication of this kind, and it would not be in the public interest to publish some of the information asked for.

Mr. Davies: Can my right hon. Friend tell me how he arrived at the conclusion that there is no general demand?

Mr. Bevin: The only communication I have had from the whole of the country for it is in the hon. Member's Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVING PERSONNEL (POST-WAR REINSTATEMENT)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the conduct of Messrs. Henry Head and Company, Lloyds insurance brokers, in endeavouring to induce employees in the Forces to accept lump sums in lieu of quarterly allowances and, where these employees have refused to accept such offers except without prejudice to their rights of reinstatement under the National Service Acts, to withdraw any allowance paid; and whether he will make it plain that any similar attempt to evade obligation under the National Service Acts will be resisted by his Department?

Mr. Bevin: I will certainly take any action that may be open to me to deal with any attempt on the part of employers to evade their obligations under the National Service Acts. My attention was drawn to the action by Messrs. Head and Company in a particular case, but I see nothing in what transpired which should affect any statutory right of reinstatement.

Mr. Hogg: Would my right hon. Friend consider bringing the facts of this case to the attention of Lloyd's Committee with a view of disciplinary action against the firm?

Mr. Bevin: I would like to consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME GUARD (ENROLMENT)

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Labour whether anyone has been compusorily enrolled or directed into the Home Guard and so subjected to military law, with its various special implications and obligations, without a Royal Proclamation to cover the age group of that person in view of the fact that no one is compulsorily enrolled in the Armed Forces of the Crown and so subjected to military law unless and until a Royal Proclamation has been made covering the age group of the person called?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. Under Section 1 of the National Service (No. 2) Act, 1941, the liability of any person to part-time service in the Armed Forces of the Crown, which includes service in the Home Guard, is such as may be imposed upon him under Defence Regulations,


and Regulation 3 of the Defence (Home Guard) Regulations, 1940, gives me the power to direct men who are British subjects to enrol in the Home Guard. No Proclamation is necessary. I am not at present directing any men over the age of 51 into the Home Guard.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Directed Workers (Trade Union Membership)

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Labour whether a person directed by his Department into the mining or other industry is forced against that person's will to join a trade union; and what provisions are made to protect individuals so directed by him into an industry where there is agreement between employers and employees in normal circumstances that only union labour be employed?

Mr. Bevin: I have no power to force a person to join a trade union. As regards the second part of the Question, the position is that in exercising my powers of direction I have due regard to the conditions laid down in agreements between employers and workers. I am not aware that any serious difficulty has arisen.

Coalmining Ballot

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will direct to coalmining all physically fit conscientious objectors of military age who are not more usefully engaged in the war effort?

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to direct conscientious objectors to military service to work in the coalmines?

Mr. Bevin: Conscientious objectors who are liable to be called up under the National Service Acts for service in the Non-Combatant Corps will take their chance for coalmining like anyone else liable to be called up under the Acts. In considering whether to direct other conscientious objectors to work in coalmining, I must have regard to the order made in each individual case by the independent tribunals set up by Statute to decide what work they should do as a condition of their registration.

Sir J. Mellor: Will not the genuine conscientious objector welcome this opportunity of service accompanied by some personal danger?

Mr. Bevin: There are thousands of cases in which conscientious objectors, although they have refused to take up arms, have shown as much courage as anyone else in Civil Defence and in other walks of life.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that it is now admitted that work in the mines involves personal danger?

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will exclude from the ballot for conscription for coalmining members of the Junior Training Corps who have shown exceptional military aptitude?

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Labour whether members of the Sea Cadets, Army Cadet Force and Air Training Corps will be permitted to serve in the service for which they are preparing themselves or whether it is proposed to direct them to employment in the mining industry?

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the Minister of Labour whether boys who have joined the pre-Service units, naval, military and air, before the announcement made by him on the subject of recruiting labour for the coalmines, will be exempt from the proposed ballot; and whether those who subsequently join these units can be made exempt provided they attain to certain standards of efficiency in those units?

Mr. Bevin: I will if I may answer Questions 10, 12 and 21 together.

Sir E. Cadogan: On a point of Order. My Question is rather different from Question No. 10 and raises further issues on the matter. I have no objection to the Questions being answered together, provided the right hon. Gentleman answers my Question.

Mr. Bevin: I regard it as essential that the ballot for coalmining should operate as widely and impartially as possible, and I cannot therefore allow any exceptions beyond the very limited categories mentioned in my statement in the House on 2nd December. Apart from this, no


change is contemplated in the present arrangements whereby members of pre-Service Training Corps are considered for the Service of their choice when they become available for calling-up under the National Service Acts.

Sir J. Mellor: Will this not discourage recruiting for the Junior Training Corps and displace some valuable potential officers?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, I do not think so. The country, if it is to win the war, must have the coal.

Sir E. Cadogan: In view of the encouragement which the Government have given to these boys to join the pre-Service units, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is something in the nature of an implied contract, and will he not reconsider the position?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. Recently, when there were not sufficient optants in the pre-Service Training Corps for the Navy, I had to direct men who had opted for certain Services from the Army to the Navy, and equally I have had to divert people away from the Air Force to other forms of military service. In this case, owing to a shortage in one direction, to maintain the war effort I must direct them similarly.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: While I deplore the effect that this must have on the pre-Service units, does my right hon. Friend realise that if he gives way on the point, seeing that there are 450,000 boys in them, it would make nonsense of his scheme? Would he consider a pre-Service training scheme for mining on which the Forster Committee reported a year and a half ago?

Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that.

Mr. Keeling: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the young men who pass through the pre-Service units are the very best young men of their age and that we want the best men in the mines?

Sir E. Cadogan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question at the first opportunity on the Adjournment.

Indian Trainees (Pay)

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Labour whether he

is aware that in Government training centres, while Indian technicians receive 64s. a week, a single disabled man who is a boarder receives only 54s., namely, 24s. plus 25s. lodging rate plus 5s. in lieu of midday meal; and whether he will take steps to remove this discrepancy?

Mr. Bevin: Indian trainees at Government training centres do not ordinarily receive 64s. a week. They are accommodated in a hostel and receive in addition to free board and lodgings a sum of 11s. 6d. a week. When sent out for further training with private firms, they receive a rate of 64s. a week, and this rate has been applied in one or two cases where for special reasons Indian trainees have had to be detached from their normal centre for special training at another centre where they had to provide for their own accommodation. I would point out that not only were these one or two cases quite exceptional, but that these payments are inclusive and there are no additions in respect of dependants or travelling expenses as in the case of disabled trainees.

Coalmine Volunteers, Portsmouth

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the regional office of his Ministry at Reading have turned down the application of Roy Tallach and Raymond Ollett, of Portsmouth, who, with the consent of their parents, had volunteered for the mining industry, on the ground that they had no relatives living in the vicinity of the pit, although lodgings were available; and if he will take action to reverse this decision?

Mr. Bevin: These two boys are under 18 years old, and I find that their transfer to coalmining employment was suspended pending discussions about the conditions to be satisfied before boys of this age are transferred to coalmining employment outside their home district. I am giving instructions for the transfer of these two boys without delay.

Sir J. Lucas: Would not some form of supervision by local authorities enable those who volunteer for useful employment to do so?

Mr. Bevin: I am going into that with the Minister of Fuel and Power. The difficulty is that I have a responsibility for these people.

Scottish Mobile Women Workers (Holiday Travel)

Mr. Fraser: asked the Minister of Labour whether Scottish girls directed to do war work in the south will be given free travel vouchers to their homes at the Christmas or New Year holiday period?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. As explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) on 30th April, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend, the scheme of travel vouchers at reduced rates only applies during the summer months. This restriction is necessitated by the heavy demands on the railways and is even greater now than when I made the announcement.

Mr. Fraser: Will not the Minister agree that these war workers who have been directed to work so far from their homes should have a prior claim to any travel facilities that there are on the railways?

Mr. Bevin: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend, but there are many thousands who want to go home, and the railways are congested at this period of the year. It is a period when we have to move enormous quantities of stock and ammunition, and we could not relax the rule.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the same problem exists in the North of England, where, because we have no factories, our girls have to travel right down into the south?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, and I have explained already that I have done my best to see whether arrangements could be made, but the congestion is so much and the amount of stuff to be moved over Christmas is so heavy that we could not have extra trains put on.

Mr. Fraser: Is it not the congestion of passenger accommodation which makes it impossible for these workers to be given the opportunity to travel?

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman appeal to local authorities in areas where these girls are working that facilities should be provided for them?

Royal Scottish National Institution, Larbert (Staff)

Major Neven-Spence: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware

of the serious shortage of nursing and domestic staff at the Royal Scottish National Institution for mental defectives at Larbert, which has already led to the closing of one modern block and which will compel the superintendent to discharge 100 inmates in the very near future, although there is a long waiting list of which at least 100 are regarded as cases of extreme urgency; and how he proposes to deal with this situation?

Mr. Bevin: I am taking special action in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to deal with the staff shortage at this institution, and if necessary I will use directions.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is not the only institution that is in the same predicament?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, and I am always advising my hon. Friend not to object to people being directed.

Mr. McNeil: As my right hon. Friend is not using his powers of direction to other institutions, will he take most careful consideration before initially using direction to an institution of this kind?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly. I had to wait for the Hetherington Report since there were no conditions laid down which would enable me to provide labour.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend has directed some of the staffs from these institutions and that is why some of them are closed?

Oral Answers to Questions — SIR OSWALD MOSLEY

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give an estimate of the number of man hours lost to the war effort by demonstrators regarding Sir Oswald Mosley?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Sir A. Knox: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether these men received pay for the hours of war labour they have lost while joy riding?

Mr. Bevin: I do not know whether it was joy riding, but they certainly were not paid for it.

Mr. Frankel: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now give an undertaking that the fees of the two private consultants who gave an opinion on the condition of Sir Oswald Mosley will not be met from public funds?

Mr. Morrison: No question of any fees from public funds will arise. The private consultants with whom the prison medical authorities conferred do not desire that any fee shall be paid in respect of that consultation.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether in view of the widespread desire for the trial of those British Fascists leaders who co-operated with Hitler and Mussolini before the war, he will consider the desirability of preferring charges against them where evidence is available?

Mr. Morrison: The tactic employed by the leaders of the British Union, both before and after the outbreak of war, was to exploit the liberty which our law allows and which Parliament was anxious to maintain, even under the stress of war, and to take good care not to bring themselves within reach of the criminal law. It was precisely because of our experience of Fifth Column activities in the over-run countries in Europe in the Spring and Summer of 1940, and because this abuse of our cherished traditions of freedom and liberty without any overt breach of the law constituted a serious menace to the security of the State, that it was felt necessary to arm the Executive with exceptional powers of preventive detention. Before exercising these exceptional powers in any particular case, the question of taking criminal proceedings is always considered, and it is the policy to prosecute wherever practicable. If the suggestion is that Parliament should have enacted, or should enact now, some new law under which Sir Oswald Mosley could be brought to trial and punished for his past behaviour and activities, the effect would be to make a person liable to punishment for doing things which at the time when they were done were not forbidden by law, and however widespread may be the desire for bringing the British Fascist leaders to trial, a provision on the lines suggested would be wholly out of keeping with our conceptions of equity and criminal justice and with sound liberal doctrine.

Mr. Mander: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is a very widespread desire throughout the country that specific charges should be directed against Sir Oswald Mosley? Do I understand from him that under the law at the present time there is no evidence on which such charges could be based?

Mr. Morrison: So far as I know, the answer to the latter part of the question is in the affirmative. If I may say so with regard to widespread feelings in the country, there is a duty resting on Members of Parliament as well as Ministers to deal with such feelings when they are not based on evidence.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: While I admit the cogency of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, will he at least consider the cases of those prominent members of the Fascist Party who are now equally prominent Communists and are responsible in some districts for running the "Gaol Mosley" stunt?

Mr. A. Edwards: What is the difference between action in this case and action in the case of retrospective legislation which the House has already passed dealing with tax evasion?

Mr. Morrison: I should have thought there was a lot of difference. The hon. Member may have another point of view, but I really cannot see the relevance of one to the other.

Mr. Gallacher: Could there be a greater condemnation of the action of the Home Secretary than that he should receive the commendation of the unspeakable Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson)?

Mr. Morrison: There is no greater condemnation of the hon. Member than that in the early days he condemned this Regulation as a Fascist law.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Mosley has got off, and so will Mussolini and Hitler.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT or in any other way make available to Members the medical reports on the health of Sir Oswald Mosley which preceded and led up to the certificate signed on 9th November, 1943?

Mr. Morrison: I have already given to my hon. Friend during the Debate on the 1st instant a reply which I think commended itself to the House, and I have nothing to add to that reply.

Mr. Silverman: In view of the appeal to history contained in my right hon. Friend's week-end speeches does he not think it advisable to supply history with the whole of the evidence and not merely with a selected portion of it?

Mr. Morrison: If you call it a speech there is something in that statement, though it was very difficult to make a speech, I assure you; but I have given the House the essential matter, and I am surprised that my hon. Friend should want further information, because he appeared to know everything about it.

Mr. Silverman: My right hon. Friend is right in saying that I am extremely anxious that my knowledge should be shared by other hon. Members, but it is his responsibility and not mine to give to the appeal tribunal which he himself selected the evidence upon which he acted.

Mr. Thorne: Does not my right hon. Friend think that if Oswald Mosley had got the power which he was seeking for himself he would have put him where the right hon. Gentleman took him from?

Mr. Shinwell: Common sense for once.

Oral Answers to Questions — STREET PROCESSIONS (IDENTITY CARDS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for the identity cards of the young men and women at present walking through the streets in procession to be checked to see whether they are properly absent from war work?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. There are other and more appropriate methods by which absences from work can be controlled.

Mr. Keeling: Has not the right hon. Gentleman carried out examinations of the cards of persons attending greyhound races, and are not these processions equally worthy of attention?

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend apply the same principle to the

people who attended the bloodstock sale at Tattersalls the other day?

Mr. Bevin: I am very reluctant to use any powers under the National Service Act which affect people visiting this House or in any way making representations to their Members of Parliament.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Why should they not protest against Mosley?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTOXICATING LIQUORS (YOUNG PEOPLE)

Mr. Ammon: asked the Home Secretary whether, as one means to reduce the evil of excessive drinking among young people, he will reintroduce the No-treating Order?

Mr. H. Morrison: The provisions of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1923, which make it an offence for anyone to buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor for consumption by a person under the age of 18, already amount to a No-treating Order in respect of persons under 18. As previously stated my present information would not justify introducing a No-treating Order of general application but I am keeping a close watch on the situation, and if it appears that further measures are required I shall not hesitate to introduce them.

Mr. Ammon: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that he gave me a somewhat similar reply eight months ago? Since then there has been a continual stream of criticism from the Bench and the Press, and a very serious statement was made by Mr. Justice Charles only a few days ago.

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of that, but, although I have kept very close observation, I do not think the case is yet proved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I quite agree that the evidence is conflicting and a difference of opinion is quite understandable, but to me it is not yet conclusive. I am anxious not to pass restrictive legislation unless there is reasonable cause for it and a prospect of success.

Mr. Graham White: Is the right hon. Gentleman directing his inquiries in the large areas of population or relying on what reaches him independently?

Mr. Morrison: Both ways.

Mr. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the growing apprehension throughout the country?

Mr. Morrison: It is true that there are many communications on the point of the Questions that have been put. I ask for information and get it and analyse the information that comes, which I do not ask for but am glad to have. Much of it is based on apprehension. What I want is rather more concrete evidence.

Viscountess Astor: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the evidence of all social workers in all crowded areas? Does he not realise the real feeling of almost alarm at the Government not taking a stronger stand and helping these young people?

Mr. Speaker: This seems to me to be more of an argument than a question asking for information.

Mr. Ammon: Eight months ago I called attention to the fact that licensees themselves were complaining about the matter and since then there have been notices calling attention to it.

Mr. Morrison: That is on the narrower point of the administration of the under-18 law. I believe the licensees are trying to administer it. There is no reason why they should not. They have not so much drink that they need not. They have willingly co-operated as regards the posters that I have had put up, but they are in difficulties in knowing whether a woman is 18 or less or more.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that police authorities in some instances prosecute employees of licensed premises and not the licensees for violation of the law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating drinks to persons under 18 years of age; and if he will consider removing this anomaly?

Mr. Morrison: It is an offence for a licensee knowingly to sell, or for his servant knowingly to sell, intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises by young persons under 18. The question of whom to proceed against depends upon the circumstances in each case. As an employee may contravene the law without the knowledge, or even against the instructions, of the licensee, it would detract from the efficacy of the law if only the licensee were liable to prosecution; but

I have no reason to believe there is failure to proceed against licensees when circumstances warrant that course.

Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend look into this point relating to violation of the law, that when a shop assistant for instance violates the law relating to the adulteration of milk or short weight it is generally the employer who is prosecuted and not the employee but in this case the employee is prosecuted and the employer, the licensee, gets off scot free?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend persists in that argument, he will weaken the administration of the law. It may well be that an assistant may supply a person under 18 without the knowledge of the employer, and it really is important that the assistant as well as the employer shall have a sense of responsibility.

Mr. Davies: Is it not possible to prosecute both?

Mr. Morrison: On the face of it, I do not see that, if an employer has given instructions to his employees that they must not do such a thing and they do it, the employer must be held accountable.

Mr. Turton: asked the Home Secretary the number of persons who have been convicted between 2nd September, 1939, and the most recent available date for breaches of the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons under Eighteen) Act, 1923; in how many cases has the maximum penalty been imposed; and in how many cases has the charge been dismissed on payment of costs?

Mr. Morrison: I can send my hon. Friend information as to the numbers of persons found guilty, the numbers fined and the numbers who were dismissed under the Probation of Offenders Act. But the statistics collected by my Department do not show what was the amount of the fine, or in how many of the cases which were dismissed, the defendant was ordered to pay costs.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend publish the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Morrison: I did wish to do that, but I am afraid it will take a week to get the figures. If my hon. Friend will put down another Question, I will certainly do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Street Lighting

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary whether he will, in conjunction with other authorities concerned, consider the advisability on dark nights and when enemy aircraft are not in the vicinity, of showing a sufficient number of searchlights at a low altitude to provide some light on the streets for the convenience of pedestrians and motorists and as a means of reducing the number of road accidents?

Mr. H. Morrison: The possibility of using searchlights for this purpose has been fully considered, but I am satisfied that the objections to the suggestion are such that it is impracticable.

Conscientious Objector, Lewes (Prosecution)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary on how many occasions George Elphick, 66, Priory Street, Lewes, a registered conscientious objector, has appeared at Lewes Police Court for refusing fireguard duty; how many times he has been prosecuted and with what results; on whom the cost of these prosecutions falls; how many times the Regional Commissioner has suggested to the Lewes Town Council to take no further proceedings against him; and what was the result of such representations?

Mr. H. Morrison: This man has been before the magistrates six times and was convicted on each of the first five occasions. The cost of these proceedings falls on the local authority. The Regional Commissioner wrote to the town council in October, 1942, deprecating repeated prosecutions in this case, but the local authority decided nevertheless to exercise their power under the Defence Regulations to institute further proceedings.

Mr. Davies: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene with the local authority, in a way which I feel sure he can, and to ask them to abandon all these prosecutions and to save public money thereby?

Mr. Morrison: I certainly should not be prepared to intervene with a view to their abandoning all these prosecutions, but in this case the Regional Commissioner did put a point of view to the local authority, and they did not accept it.

Mr. Davies: Is it not possible to induce them to have more sympathy with conscientious objectors?

Mr. Morrison: I know where that question came from.

Mr. Silverman: If, in the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, these repeated prosecutions are undesirable and if, nevertheless, they take place, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider some method of amending the Regulations so that undesirable prosecutions shall not take place?

Mr. Morrison: I have carefully considered the question, but there are great difficulties about it, and I think that we must let it run as it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIANS (NATIONALITY)

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he has now given consideration to the proposal that, in the light of decisions arrived at at the Moscow Conference, those who were Austrian subjects before the seizure of that country by Germany on 15th March, 1938, shall in future be described on their passports and other documents as Austrian and not German subjects; and whether he has any statement to make?

Mr. H. Morrison: This matter is receiving consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Mander: If I ask a Question in the next series of Sittings will my right hon. Friend be in a position to reply?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot stop my hon. Friend putting a Question down, but I doubt whether I shall be ready by then. I will try to let him know.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE COURTS (HEREFORD CASE, INQUIRY)

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make with reference to the Hereford Juvenile Court inquiry; and what action it is proposed to take in respect of the failure of the official concerned to supply the King's Bench Division with essential evidence by serving notice of motion on the prosecuting police officer?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to express in this House my appreciation of the public service which Lord Justice Goddard has rendered by investigating this matter so thoroughly and so quickly, and by writing so admirably clear a Report. It is a matter for general satisfaction—and not least to the Hereford justices concerned—that the Report has completely dissipated the misapprehension that fundamental principles of justice had been ignored by the Hereford Juvenile Court. The Report draws attention to one or two minor questions of procedure as to which I am in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, and I shall consider with him whether the Rules governing the procedure of juvenile courts need any amendment.
The latter part of my hon. Friend's Question seems to involve some misapprehension. It is not the duty of any official to serve notice of motion on the prosecuting police officer; that is the duty of the party who is applying to the Divisional Court, and it is much to be regretted that neither he nor his solicitor took the proper steps to inform the prosecuting police officer that the application was being made. Lord Justice Goddard has pointed out in paragraph 3 of his Report that the police in fact knew nothing of the proceedings in the High Court until they read of them in the newspapers, and that had the police been duly informed a very different state of affairs might have resulted.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that Lord Justice Goddard has, in effect, unofficially reversed the decision of the King's Bench, and is this not a very curious position?

Mr. Morrison: As far as I know, that is not the case, but in any case my hon. Friend is drawing me on to the threshold of dangerous and explosive matters, and I think I had better not express an opinion.

Mr. Silverman: Did the three very experienced Judges who formed the Divisional Court take any cognisance in their judgment of the fact that an essential element in the procedure had not been observed?

Mr. Morrison: If there is to be any question about the procedure of the High Court, it had better be put down.

Mr. Astor: In view of the fact that the solicitor concerned failed in his duty to inform the police, will he be dealt with by the Law Society?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I am not expert enough in the practice of the Law Society to say.

Mr. Silverman: In view of the fact that this Report raises some important and interesting questions and does not remove everybody's dissatisfaction on the original complaint, can an opportunity be afforded to the House to debate the matter?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter for the Leader of the House, but I should have thought that this Report really effectively disposed of the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (RETIREMENT)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Home Secretary whether regulations under the Police and Firemen (War Service) Act, 1939, which suspend the right of police officers to retire on pension during the present emergency without the consent of the appropriate local authority, also suspend the right of the authority to retire such officers solely on the ground that they have reached the retiring age of 50 years?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am advised that the legal position is that the existing restrictions on the right of police officers to retire during the present emergency do not confer a right on any individual officer to continue in service. In practice, however, it is important that police authorities shall not during the present emergency terminate the services of competent men merely on the ground that they have reached the retiring age, and this principle is, I believe, generally understood.

Mr. Hall: What can a police officer who is retired by a local authority do in these circumstances?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that if a local authority does this there is nothing he can effectively do about it, but I hope the Question and answer may be helpful in the direction my hon. Friend wishes.

Mr. Hall: May I send the papers to my right hon. Friend again?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOGGING AND BIRCHING

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Home Secretary how many British citizens have been flogged or birched during the last 10 years in the British Isles?

Mr. H. Morrison: During the 10 years 1933–42, 2,100 boys under 17 were sentenced by courts of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales to be birched, and 480 males were sentenced by courts of assize or quarter sessions to receive the birch or the cat. No doubt the great majority of these sentences were imposed on British subjects, but the available statistics do not distinguish between aliens and British subjects.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is not an increase in crime proved by the figures of flogging?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Home Secretary whether, in connection with voters' rights in local government elections, he will now consider introducing legislation to make possible the holding of these elections with a view to preventing an increase in the large number of members who will otherwise have to be co-opted?

Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that it is not yet possible to contemplate the holding of local elections. As my hon. Friend knows, a Bill further to suspend the holding of such elections is before the House at the present time.

Mr. De la Bère: Did not my right hon. Friend, about six months ago, give me some encouragement to believe that he would do everything possible to prevent an undue degree of co-option? Is not the number of co-opted members on councils throughout the country becoming rather unwieldy?

Mr. Morrison: I always try to give my hon. Friend encouragement, though I do not think I went so far as to say that I would put the position right this year, but the matter will be kept under review.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only encouragement I want but effective action?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (RELEASE ON MEDICAL GROUNDS)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Home Secretary whether it is the usual procedure to release prisoners suffering from thrombo-phlebitis; and how many such have been released?

Mr. H. Morrison: The general policy with regard to persons convicted of offences and sentenced to imprisonment or penal servitude is that release on medical grounds is considered if continued imprisonment will endanger the prisoner's life or reason, or will shorten his life, or if he will be bedridden for the remainder of his sentence. During the year 1942 eight men and one woman were released from prison under this policy. There is, of course, no rule that prisoners suffering from one type of disease shall be released and prisoners suffering from another type shall not. Each case is considered by reference to the effect of the disease on the health of the particular prisoner and the degree of danger that continued imprisonment will entail.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is not the Home Office suffering from moral malaria in releasing for this disease only a millionaire?

Mr. Morrison: Clearly that statement is untruthful, and the hon. and gallant Member must know it. If he and I are going to discuss what he and I are suffering from, it will be a long Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACQUITTED AND BOUND OVER PERSONS (WELFARE)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Home Secretary how many persons detained in prison during the last year, for which figures are available, did not return to prison after trial; whether he is aware that many such persons who have been acquitted or bound over on probation are in need of care and assistance; and whether he will take steps to provide this?

Mr. H. Morrison: During the year 1942 there were 11,287 persons committed to prison on remand or to await trial who did not subsequently receive sentences of imprisonment. Care and assistance are provided in the ordinary course for persons who are bound over on probation under the supervision of the probation officer.


In all other cases, the probation officer is usually at the court, and it is part of his duties to give such advice and help as is required. Assistance is also given in some cases through the local Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies believe that they are unable to help these cases because they are not legally prisoners, and will he take steps to encourage societies to do that?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly go into that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a considerable time must elapse before a message, initiated by a fire guard reporting a serious fire, can be conveyed by the various messengers to an N.F.S. station through the prescribed channels to summon a fire engine during an alert at night; and whether he will both simplify the fire guard procedure and assure the House that other methods exist to prevent any delay in the arrival of engines at big fires?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Fire Guard Plan was devised to secure that calls for assistance are received by the National Fire Service in the quickest and most orderly manner and to eliminate unnecessary and duplicate calls. Exercises have shown that under this system it is possible for the National Fire Service to deal with a large number of incidents more rapidly than hitherto.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give an assurance that the approval and presentation of a N.F.S. flag does not indicate that the Government propose to maintain a N.F.S. after the war in view of the definite pledge given to the local authorities that the firefighting forces would not be permanently run by the State but would again become a local authority service after the war?

Mr. Morrison: The approval of a National Fire Service flag has no bearing on the post-war organisation of the Fire Service.

Mr. Lipson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has given a definite pledge

to the Fire Fighting Service on this matter?

Mr. Morrison: What I said is in the records of this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (DETENTION)

Miss Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary how many aliens are under detention in internment camps or prisons on the ground not of suspected traffic or sympathy with the enemy but of offences against the law for which they previously suffered punishment in this or other countries and which are held to justify their deportation when deportation becomes possible; and how many of them have been in detention for over three years?

Mr. H. Morrison: Forty-five aliens who are known to have been convicted are detained under Article 12 (5A) of the Aliens Order on the grounds that a Deportation Order has been made but cannot be enforced, and that detention is necessary or expedient for the preservation of public order. Seventeen of these persons have been detained for more than three years.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the long period of detention that these men have already suffered in complete separation from their families and without opportunity of earning, is it not time that this policy was reconsidered?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure my hon. Friend that the cases are considered from time to time and are reviewed, but it is important that aliens and particularly refugees should understand that they must behave themselves or something will happen to them in that way. I can assure my hon. Friend that I review the cases from time to time with, I hope, good sense and without lack of sympathy.

Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the considerations of public order referred to in the answer?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, not without notice.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary how many aliens detained


under Regulation 12 (5A) are, respectively, of Allied, neutral or enemy nationality or Stateless?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend no doubt refers to Article 12 (5A) of the Aliens Order. The figures are as follow: 264 are of allied nationality, 27 of neutral nationality, 7 of enemy nationality, 9 are Stateless, and the nationality of 13 is uncertain.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman say to what State he intends to send these Stateless aliens after the war, so as to prevent them from being kept indefinitely in detention?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I should have to have notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST END CLUB (POLICE RAID)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with the police raid on the Apex Club, Mile End Road, as a result of which Mrs. Ettie da Costa, of Mabon Terrace, Stepney, and others were charged at the Old Street Police Court on Monday last; and what he intends doing to prevent the growth of such clubs?

Mr. H. Morrison: This club was entered by the police on 4th December. Mrs. da Costa and two other principals were arrested, together with 27 persons found on the premises. On 6th December the three principals were ordered to pay fines amounting to £250 and £31 10s. costs; the remaining persons were bound over. The police do all they can to prevent the growth of such clubs by taking action whenever evidence of breaches of the law can be obtained.

Mr. Thorne: May I ask whether it is the intention to close this club?

Mr. Morrison: I could not say.

Viscountess Astor: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the people concerned have plenty of money with which to pay fines and that the only way of getting rid of these clubs is to close them?

Mr. Morrison: I entirely agree that many of these places are most objectionable, but my powers are, of course, limited.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: When such raids take place do the police check up on identification cards, the nature of the jobs the men are supposed to be doing, and the ages, in particular the age relating to military service, and is any of that evidence passed over to the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, it must have been done in this case, because I am informed that no deserters or persons evading military service were found in the club.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM

Mr. Riley: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of having a comprehensive statement, issued at an early date, indicating the Government's plans regarding contemplated changes in the scope and functions of the powers and duties of local authorities?

Captain Sir William Brass: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his recent declaration in connection with the nationalisation of the coal industry, he will give a similar undertaking with regard to the recent proposals for the enlargement and alteration of existing local government areas, bearing in mind the representations which have been made to him by national associations of local authorities and the anxiety with which such proposals are viewed by the members of local administrative boards in close touch with public opinion in their respective localities?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22nd September in reply to Questions on this subject. I have at present nothing to add to that statement.

Mr. Riley: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the concern among local authorities over their uncertainty with regard to many of their present duties and cannot some statement be made which will give them an indication of how to arrange their programmes?

Mr. Attlee: I am sure that if my hon. Friend will look at the reply by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to which I alluded he will see matter completely satisfying any fears of any general overturn of local government.

Sir W. Brass: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great disquietude in various parts of the country because people feel that the administration may be taken away from those in close touch with local affairs and handed to someone who is further off? They are very frightened.

Mr. Attlee: I can assure my hon. Friend that those fears are groundless.

Mr. Holdsworth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities are dissatisfied with the Prime Minister's refusal to set up an inquiry before any change was made, and can he give further consideration to that point?

Mr. Messer: Is it not true that a comprehensive health service, and changes in the education service and in other services will necessitate some alteration in local government administration, and can we be told what is in the mind of the Government upon that point?

Mr. Ralph Etherton: Would the Deputy Prime Minister consider giving time to the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stretford?

[That this House, whilst recognising that changes will be required in the structure and functions of local authorities in order to meet the requirements of post-war conditions and whilst concerned that the consequent reorganisation of local services shall not be delayed, is determined to maintain the full responsibility of elected local representatives and thus to preserve the vitality and administrative efficiency of our democratic local institutions.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICA STAR

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Prime Minister whether the Africa Star will be awarded to troops in the Sudan and East Africa who took part in the Abyssinian campaign?

Mr. Attlee: Troops who took part in the campaign will be eligible.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statement will give very great satisfaction to large numbers of troops who were in great doubt upon that point?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I ask when we shall get a Debate upon the White Paper which led up to this change?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants to take that Debate himself.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RESEARCH DEPARTMENT)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the urgent need for an efficient research department for the assistance of Members of Parliament in carrying out their duties; and whether he is aware that an organisation at the disposal of Members can be made to save an immense amount of work for Ministers and their staffs?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. Such a proposal is not practicable.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister not aware that more than 50 per cent. of the Questions on the Order Paper could be answered promptly by inquiry at an office formed on the lines which I suggest in my Question, and would not that be a great economy of time for Ministers and for the House?

Mr. Attlee: I should have thought the answer to the hon. Member was that he might take up this proposal with the Ministries concerned, and not have put a Question on the Paper.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely hon. Members can get all the information they want by asking questions from the Government?

Mr. Buchanan: Have not hon. Members of this House their own ideas to guide them on these matters without getting instructions from others?

Mr. Attlee: I quite agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Water Supply, Yelling, Huntingdonshire

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the village of Yelling, Huntingdonshire, is entirely without water, as a result of which agriculture has suffered and the yield of milk diminished; and whether he will consider the possibility of piping water from the nearest river in order to assist local farmers during the present emergency?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am aware that there is a shortage of water at Yelling, Huntingdonshire, and schemes for alleviating the position are under consideration.

Mr. Hall: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what those schemes are, and as the position in that area is a scandal could not something be done in view of the fact that large sums are being spent in other directions?

Mr. Hudson: I would point out that Yelling is in no worse position in regard to water supply than a very large number of other areas, including areas in Huntingdonshire. During the war we cannot deal with all of them, but I hope that a scheme for laying on water not only to farms but to villages will be one of the first things we shall tackle when the material and labour are available after the war.

Crops Harvested

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total weight of crops harvested in 1942 and the estimated amount for 1943.

Mr. Hudson: I regret that detailed figures of this sort are not given at the present time.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask why there is this refusal to give this information to Members of this House when it is contained in a pamphlet published by the Ministry of Information in the United States of America, together with a mass of other information which we are refused in this House?

Mr. Hudson: I shall have to look into that. I will certainly see that Members here are given any information we give abroad.

Poultry Feeding-stuffs

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider some method whereby ex-Service men who have been overseas and have been discharged on account of ill-health, who are desirous of earning a livelihood by way of poultry keeping, shall have some allocation to enable them to obtain feeding-stuffs for poultry keeping, in view of the large number of cases where they have been refused any allocation through the war agricultural executive committees?

Mr. Hudson: The very small balance of feeding-stuffs left for pigs and poultry after provision is made for priority livestock, namely, dairy cows, calves and essential working horses, is, I am afraid, inadequate to provide for exceptional treatment for ex-Service men of either the present war or that of 1914–18.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that ex-Service men who return from these arduous campaigns are entitled to some special priority? Why does he not ask the war agricultural executive committees to endeavour to give some small amount of feeding-stuffs at any rate to these men, in view of all they have done for the country? I do not think the matter should be dismissed in this way.

Mr. Hudson: I think that nothing would be more disastrous to the future of those who have done so much for their country as to encourage them to go in for a calling of which the future is so uncertain for several years to come as poultry keeping, and in the interests of the ex-Service men themselves I deprecate their going into poultry keeping at the present time.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that many of these men were poultry keepers before being called up for Service, as in the case to which I have drawn his attention, and that both he and the agricultural committees fail to recognise the priority right of ex-Service men? I am not satisfied with the position, and I do not like it.

Tenant Farmers, Montgomeryshire (Notice to Quit)

Mr. Clement Davies: asked the Minister of Agriculture what inquiries has he made with regard to the cases of two farmers named Mr. Edwards and Mr. Williams in the area of Llanfyllin, Montgomeryshire, who, as he is aware, were given notice last March by their landlord to quit their respective farms next March; and what action has he taken or does he propose to take with regard thereto?

Mr. Hudson: At my request the county war agricultural executive committee have considered the circumstances of these two cases very carefully and have advised me that they can find no grounds on which they would be justified in seeking my con-


sent to their taking possession of the farms in order to retain the sitting tenants in occupation. It is understood that the object of the landlords in giving the notice to quit is to farm the lands themselves and there is no reason to anticipate that the lands under their control will be less productive than under that of the sitting tenant.

Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these two farmers have an excellent reputation both as farmers and as food producers, and, secondly, that they and their families before them have been in occupation of these farms in one case for 100 years and in the other case for 67 years, and that now they are to be turned out, which is causing a great deal of anxiety and dissatisfaction?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, but under the existing law the only case I have for intervening is in respect of food production, and I am satisfied that in this particular case there is no reason to suppose that the production of food will be interfered with by these transfers.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Is it not a fact that there is a lack of security for tenant farmers to-day, and would not the Government consider introducing legislation to make their tenure safer?

Mr. Hudson: The question of tenure is one of the questions which will be discussed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself with the various branches of the industry, when we are considering transitional and long-term agricultural policies.

Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend know that these two farmers know their land thoroughly, while the new landlord who is proposing to take possession has had no experience whatever of these farms?

Mr. Sloan: Is the Minister aware that his answer is just the sort of trifling answer I received from the Secretary of State for Scotland in a similar matter which I brought before him?

Prices

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture on what grounds it is expected that the new farm prices will enable the bulk of the farmers' community, that is to say, those who farm a small acreage, to make a reasonable return while maintaining

the improved position of the agricultural workers?

Mr. Hudson: I have reviewed all the available evidence and acquainted myself with the views of the representatives of farmers, landowners and farm-workers, and come to the conclusion that the new prices will provide a sufficient and even generous remuneration for the work and enterprise of efficient farmers. This conclusion applies also to farmers who farm a small acreage, provided that the acreage is sufficient to form an economic unit.

Sir P. Hurd: Is the Minister seeking mutual understanding with the representative organisations of farmers and farm workers so as not to check food production?

Mr. Hudson: I am satisfied personally that the new prices afford no justification for any assumption that food production will be checked.

Farm Workers (Clothing)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will instruct war agricultural executive committees to give equal facilities for obtaining oilskin clothing and rubber boots to women who work regularly on the land, regardless of whether they are, or are not, members of the Land Army?

Sir Joseph Lamb: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will arrange that girls working on the land who are not in the Land Army, through no fault of their own, but excluded by the fact that they are agricultural workers, are given special facilities to obtain suitable clothing and equipment for the work which they have to do, with those who are members of the Land Army and doing similar work?

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether arrangements could be made for stocks of suitable clothing, such as that issued to members of the W.L.A., to be made available for the wives and daughters of farmers who are working on the land?

Mr. Hudson: Women regularly engaged on agricultural work are in the same position as other agricultural workers in the matter of clothing. On taking up agricultural work for the first time they are entitled to an initial outfit allowance of


30 coupons. Subsequently they receive the supplementary allowance of coupons awarded to agricultural workers generally. Protective clothing consisting of oilskins, including coats and leggings, industrial gloves, and milking overalls, may be purchased by agricultural workers coupon-free by permit from the county war agricultural executive committees. As the large majority of the Women's Land Army come from the towns, their clothing is normally unsuitable for agricultural work. An initial outfit is essential, but they are required to surrender each year a substantial number of civilian coupons to cover necessary replacements.

Sir J. Lamb: Is it not a fact that after the initial outfit they were subsequently on the same level in all cases?

Mr. Hudson: Then there cannot be any complaint.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE REGULATION 18B

Mr. Silverman: asked the Home Secretary whether in order to remove out of the area of political and party controversy all questions of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature arising out of the administration of Defence Regulation 18B, he will introduce an amended Regulation to provide a judicial tribunal to hear appeals from his decisions either to detain or to release persons affected thereby?

Mr. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4th August to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Sir R. Rankin), to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Silverman: Since that answer was given, have we not had an example in the House of the undesirable results of leaving these questions to be dealt with on political grounds? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that if there is to be no appeal from his decisions except to this House, it is inevitable that those decisions will be dealt with in a political and not in a judicial spirit?

Mr. Morrison: That may be true of some hon. Members of this House, but, generally speaking, I think the capacity of this House to approach a matter of this kind in a judicial spirit is one of the finest attributes of British Parliamentary life.

Mr. Silverman: Is it not totally impossible for any Member to approach a specific question in a judicial spirit if the Government Whips are on, and he is told in advance that the fate not merely of the particular issue but of the Government and of Ministers depends upon it?

Oral Answers to Questions — SECONDARY SCHOOL PUPILS (EMPLOYMENT)

Sir P. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the growing practice of officials of the Ministry of Health, Post Office and other Departments in attracting pupils from secondary schools in Wiltshire and elsewhere, before the end of their term of education, thus disorganising the work of the schools and wasting school places; and whether he will consult with these Departments with a view to ending this practice and give directions to the education authorities as to the course they should pursue?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I am assured that no secondary school pupils are employed by the Post Office before the termination of their school life agreement without the written consent of the local education authority. In the case of the Ministry of Health, I understand that my right hon. Friend has no knowledge of the recruitment of secondary school pupils under the age of 16 to the local offices of the Ministry. If, however, my hon. Friend will furnish him with particulars of the cases he has in mind investigations will be made into the circumstances.

Sir P. Hurd: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I have already sent particulars of these cases to his Department, and may I ask whether he will give an undertaking that this matter which is so disturbing to secondary education will cease at the end of the present emergency?

Mr. Butler: The first part of my answer dealt with problems of my own Department and the second part with problems connected with the Department of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Sir P. Hurd: Can we have an undertaking?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Agricultural Workers

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with the building of farm-workers' cottages in rural areas, he can now state if he proposes to adopt throughout these rural areas the standard plans which have been prepared by the Ministry of Works; and whether the rural district councils will be entirely precluded from submitting plans to meet the requirements of their individual areas?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): The Ministry of Works were asked to prepare the plans referred to for use, in connection with the scheme for the provision of 3,000 agricultural cottages, by those local authorities who could not obtain reasonable tenders for the earlier plans. The answer to both parts of the Question is, therefore, "No, Sir."

Mr. De la Bère: Does the Minister realise how grievously the rural community need these cottages? Is it not very necessary to separate the truth from the false and the real from the unreal? What has been going on between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works and Buildings? I think we really ought to have some enlightenment as to why this delay has taken place. It is very unsatisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

National Health Service

Mr. McNeil: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to say when the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Health Services will be published?

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Minister of Health whether it is still intended to produce a White Paper as to the proposals for the reformation of the medical service arising out of the recommendations of the Beveridge Report and, if so, when; and what evidence has been taken and considered in this connection from interests representative of the medical profession, local authorities, hospitals, opticians and pharmacists?

Mr. Willink: The White Paper is in preparation. My hon. Friends will appreciate that I must have sufficient time to

study closely the many difficult issues involved. For this reason it is not yet possible for the date of publication of the Paper to be fixed, but there will be no avoidable delay. On the last part of the Question, I cannot usefully add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 23rd September last.

Mr. McNeil: Do I understand the Minister to inform us that he is initiating new conversations and that he will not produce the White Paper which was previously in draft?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir, no new consultations are being initiated, but I think my hon. Friend and the whole House will agree that the questions involved in this matter are of first-class importance and of great complexity and great delicacy, and that I should not be doing my duty unless I put forward to my colleagues proposals for which I feel I can take the fullest and most real and personal responsibility.

Mr. Graham White: Can the Minister give us a little bit more enlightenment as to the period of time? Will it be six months or next year?

Mr. Willink: I hope it will be quite early next year.

Mr. Gallacher: Are we to take it from the original answer that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor made no study of these questions?

Mr. Hutchinson: Will this House have an opportunity of debating the White Paper after it has been published?

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. Of course, my predecessor gave the fullest consideration to these matters. I am giving my own fresh consideration to them myself.

Major C. S. Taylor: Arising out of the original reply, in the consultations which have taken place are the interests of the large number of civilian doctors in the Services now being consulted?

Mr. Willink: I have said that no consultations are at present taking place.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Messer: On a point of Order. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether you can tell us whether it is in your power


to arrange that Ministry of Health Questions shall come earlier in priority. We have only reached two Questions addressed to that most important Ministry to-day.

Mr. Speaker: One endeavours to arrange things as best one can. Sometimes the Ministry of Health Questions come early, sometimes late.

Mr. McEntee: Further to the point of Order. May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has given any further consideration, and with what result, to the question I put last week and to which I understood him to reply that consideration would be given to the matter as to whether Questions could be taken on the fourth Sitting Day?

Mr. Attlee: We will consider the whole question when we come to consider the Sittings after the Recess.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to state the Business for the next series of Sittings, and whether he has any statement to make with regard to the duration of the Recess?

Mr. Attlee: As regards Business during the next series of Sittings, the House will be asked to sit an additional day at the end of the series of Sittings. The Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day.—The promised Debate on the War Situation and on Foreign Affairs will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House; Second Reading of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill [Lords].
Second Sitting Day.—Conclusion of the Debate on the War Situation and on Foreign Affairs; Motion to approve the Government of Burma Orders.
Third Sitting Day.—Committee and remaining stages of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill [Lords]; Motion to approve the draft Electoral Registration Regulations. Afterwards there will be an opportunity for a Debate on Newfoundland.
Fourth Sitting Day.—The House will adjourn for the Christmas Recess until—
I might say on that the desire is to give the same Recess as last year, but we want to avoid Members having to travel in the rush time during Christmas.

Mr. Shinwell: Now that the Deputy Prime Minister has specified quite clearly and publicly when the House is to resume—the actual date we are to resume after the Christmas Recess—can we now abandon the farce of talking about the next Sitting Day?

Mr. Attlee: The Prime Minister dealt with this quite recently. I cannot add anything further. This information is not published.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that reference to the date of the resumption after the Christmas Recess does not appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that nothing is to be said about it? Is that the position?

Mr. Attlee: indicated assent.

Mr. Maxton: Am I to understand that the discussion on foreign affairs will conclude the Debate on the Address?

Mr. Attlee: We concluded the Debate on the Address yesterday.

Mr. Maxton: Am I to understand that the discussion will take place on an Adjournment Motion? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Deputy Prime Minister said so."] Will the Newfoundland discussion also take place on an Adjournment Motion?

Mr. Attlee: We are considering whether there should be a Motion on the Paper.

Mr. Maxton: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is not possible to put a Motion on the Paper with reference to foreign affairs? It can only be in the most general terms. In the last foreign affairs Debate, when the Foreign Secretary came back from the Moscow Conference, we were discussing the decisions, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said that the House endorsed the report of the Foreign Secretary. The House was not endorsing anything. Should not the Government on these rather important occasions take the trouble to put a positive Motion down?

Mr. Attlee: No, I think that that would defeat our whole intention in having this Debate on the Adjournment. My hon. Friend will remember that, owing to the absence of Ministers abroad, the foreign affairs aspect of the Debate on the Address was not considered. To put a Motion on the Paper now would be to narrow the opportunities of Members, who, as I said, can have the full time that they would have had in the Debate on the Address. It would, therefore, be a mistake to narrow the scope of the Debate.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that at the North African and Teheran Conferences big decisions on foreign affairs were made? A majority of the House would endorse the actions of the Prime Minister at those two Conferences, but are hon. Members not to have an opportunity of saying whether they approve or not? On the Adjournment there is no such opportunity.

Mr. Attlee: I have not said that the House is not to have such an opportunity; what I am doing is fulfilling the pledge I gave that there should be two days on which the whole range of questions relating to foreign affairs and the conduct of the war, normally taken on the Address, should be fully debated. It would be a breach of that undertaking to put down a Motion which would narrow the Debate.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Will the Debate be initiated by a Minister or by private Members?

Mr. Attlee: I cannot answer that question off-hand. I will give the information as soon as possible.

Mr. Mander: Can we be told what the Business will be when the House re-assembles?

Mr. Attlee: Not yet.

Mr. Lipson: When is the Education Bill likely to be available?

Mr. Attlee: It will be taken soon after we re-assemble. The Bill will be published next week.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter which has been raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)? Is it not in the interests of the Government that they should put down a Motion which would

give a very wide scope for discussion on foreign affairs, and which would give the House an opportunity of approving the policy of the Government at these Conferences?

Mr. Shinwell: If the Government were to put down a Motion endorsing all that occurred at the Teheran and North African Conferences, would they not be compelled to disclose details, including their future intentions, and would not that be exceedingly difficult? Could we not in fact, if we are dissatisfied with the Government's statement in the war Debate, vote against the Government on the Adjournment Motion?

Mr. Tinker: Might I suggest that my right hon. Friend should put down a Motion, and let the Government show their confidence or otherwise in what has happened? We ought to have the opinion of the House, definitely and clearly expressed. The Government have nothing to fear on this matter.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not possible to get an opportunity before the Recess for a short discussion on the very bad situation that exists in regard to many matters, particularly health in Scotland, and the possibility of reviving the sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee, to deal with some of these problems during the Recess?

Mr. Attlee: If the hon. Member is fortunate enough to attract the attention of the Chair, there will be an opportunity on the fourth Sitting Day, on the Motion for the Adjournment. With regard to the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), I still think there is a danger that such a Motion might unduly restrict the House. I think it is perfectly possible to express support or dissent and if necessary there can be a vote against the Adjournment.

Mr. Keeling: Is it not a fact that Mr. Neville Chamberlain resigned because of the smallness of his majority on an Adjournment Motion? Is it not equally possible for this House to show its disapproval of the Government's foreign policy on an Adjournment Motion?

Mr. Gallacher: Why should the welfare of Scotland be left to the chance of my catching the Speaker's eye when the Speaker may not be sympathetic towards me?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to continue the operation of section one of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Act, 1939." [Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the guardianship of infants who have come to the United Kingdom in consequence of war or persecution." [Guardianship (Refugee Children) Bill [Lords.]

MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

GUARDIANSHIP (REFUGEE CHILDREN) BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, and the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-four, and of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-five, being expenses which, under any of the four last-mentioned Acts, are to be defrayed out of such moneys; and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of such receipts as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, and the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the said thirty-first day of December, and the said thirty-first day of March, respectively, being receipts which, under either of the last-mentioned Acts, are to be paid into the Exchequer."

Resolution agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Short title and application to Northern Ireland.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. S. O. Davies: It is rather difficult to follow what is actually covered by this Bill and the extent to which particular laws are to be continued. I am particularly anxious about the Act relating to the special areas—

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot raise that question on this Clause; there will no doubt be other opportunities.

Question put, and agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Rhys Davies: I wish to ask a few questions—and they will not be unfriendly—on the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. There is a great deal of prophecy that the war may end in 1944, and, consequently, the House of Commons ought to have an answer to certain points which arise out of this Act. The first question which I wish to put to the Minister, is whether the Regulations under this Act are to be continued after the war. The aliens who are now in this country and who are affected would be glad, I am sure, to know what is to happen to them after the conclusion of hostilities. Secondly, it would be interesting to know how many aliens have actually reached this country since the war began. I do not think we have had the actual figures of that kind so far. Finally, there is an important point which I think will appeal to all hon. Members. What is the intention of the Government in regard to repatriating these poor people when peace returns? There must be 60,000 or 70,000 or even more of them in this country. As hon. Members know, I once had something to do with this problem, and I can speak with a little knowledge of it, and I would not like to think that the British Government, having given asylum to these unfortunate refugees during the war, should immediately repatriate them when the war ends perhaps to countries where they may be put into concentration camps once again. I hope that the Government will not repatriate any refugees until they are absolutely certain that when they reach their native land, they will not be persecuted by Governments.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): The position as regards the various points raised by my hon. Friend is as follows: As he knows well, Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, enables His Majesty, in time of war, or in time of imminent national danger, or grave emergency, by Order in Council to impose restrictions on aliens and to make such provision as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying these into effect. At the conclusion of the last war this power would normally have lapsed but as the hon. Gentleman also knows the conditions at that time were such that it was felt necessary to continue it, and this was


done by Section I of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, but only for a period of one year. Since 1920 therefore this law has been continued every year by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. It was under the old law, that of 1914–1919, that the Aliens Order of 1921 was made and it is under this Order that control is exercised over aliens. They are required to register their presence here and their addresses and their entry and departure, so that they can be deported or detained if this should be necessary.
The general control that is exercised over aliens is under these Orders. In time of war or danger the power of imposing restrictions on aliens by Order in Council is provided for by the Act of 1914, so that, actually, while we are at war, there is really no necessity for the continuance of Section 1 of the 1919 Act. But because of the long period which must elapse after the end of the war before normal conditions are likely to be restored, not only in this country but in the world at large, this continuance becomes necessary. Nobody, I think, imagines that we can go back completely to pre-war conditions immediately hostilities cease and therefore it has been considered desirable, since the outbreak of war, to include this Section in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and that the power which is vested in the Secretary of State to make this Order should be capable of being exercised at any time and not only in time of war, imminent national danger or grave emergency. Unless the Section is continued, the whole of the present control of aliens would disappear at the end of the war, or at the end of any period of emergency conditions which might be regarded as following the end of the war, and it would become necessary then to pass fresh legislation immediately, or the Executive would have no power to exercise any control over aliens landing or residing in the United Kingdom.
That is the general background to the questions which the hon. Gentleman has asked, and it is one of which he himself knows a great deal. Coming to the actual numbers for which he asked, out of a total of 277,169 foreign persons over the age of 16 registered with the police on 31st March, 1943, 124,804 have been given permission to enter this country under a

condition which requires them to leave on a date to be determined by the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman will thus see that there is a considerably larger number than the 70,000 mentioned by him, who must leave the country when directed to do so by the Secretary of State. Among these, as the hon. Gentleman said, is a considerable number of refugees who came from Austria, Germany and Czechoslovakia before the war, owing to Nazi persecution. Many more refugees have reached this country since May, 1940. There are, approximately, 27,000 seamen who are largely nationals of the Allied Powers in Europe and who are giving excellent help in our war effort. Although no steps have obviously been taken during the war to restore them to their own country or to effect their removal to other countries willing to receive them, their ultimate disposal is naturally a matter of grave concern to His Majesty's Government, and it will eventually have to be dealt with under the powers vested in the Secretary of State by the Aliens Restriction Acts, 1914 and 1919, and the Orders made under them which my hon. Friend administered during his term in the Home Office.
It is true, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that there is something in favour of having permanent legislation to provide for the control of aliens in the United Kingdom, but as he knows very well, it is unlikely that the state of this country or of the world in general immediately after the end of the war would provide the necessary setting in which it would be really possible to draw up a permanent Act, or rather a permanent Bill, which we could lay before Parliament. The only alternative to a permanent Act is to secure that for some time to come and until conditions are more stable the power to control aliens should be vested in the Secretary of State year by year by preserving on the Statute Book Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1919. I, like other hon. Members who have had a great deal to do with these refugees, know of their appalling state of terror and how unhappy they are. We do not want them to feel that they are going to be thrown out the moment that the war ends, and the advantage of legislating in this way for the control of aliens by means of an Order in Council is that it provides a flexible instrument which can be amended, as fre-


quently as is found necessary, to meet a constantly changing and unforeseeable situation. Much as I would like to give an answer to my hon. Friend, it is utterly impossible at the moment for the Home Secretary to commit himself in any way, because nobody knows what the conditions will be, but, by maintaining this arrangement, it does give us a flexible instrument for dealing with the situation.

Mr. Silverman: I think the Committee will be grateful to my hon. Friend for what she has said. I do not want to deal now—it would not be right for me to do so—with the whole question of the disposal of refugees and aliens after the war, particularly with the large class of Stateless ones, who are obviously going to be a very great world problem and one not to be solved merely by this country, but by agreement with other countries who share the responsibility. I would like to say that I hope nobody is to be forced back anywhere. I say no more than that at this stage, because I know my hon. Friend understands what I mean, but I do want to say a word about the undesirability of continuing the present position indefinitely, because, under the present position, aliens are completely at the mercy of the Secretary of State. I know that Secretaries of State vary, and I am not going to compare one with another—certainly not at this stage—but aliens have no appeal to any advisory tribunal, they have no appeal to the courts, they have no rights under the Habeas Corpus Acts, and they have not even got the right that the detained persons under Regulation 18B have of appearing before a tribunal and being given some information and some opportunity of answering what is said against them, however inadequate an opportunity it is. Still, it is some opportunity and, in the case of aliens, there is no opportunity at all.
People are taken by the Secretary of State under his powers, and they are interned; they are detained. They never know what it is that is said against them. They never know who it is that says it, and they never have any opportunity of replying to it. They are not merely completely at the mercy of the Department, completely at the mercy of the police, often completely at the mercy of a secret foreign police—because the Home Secretary

himself by the very nature of the case can know nothing about it personally—but they are in complete ignorance, helpless, isolated, with no knowledge of the language, no friends, and no legal rights at all except the opportunity of presenting petition after petition, as many of them do, appealing to the mercy of the Minister. It may well be that in times of emergency all that is inevitable and there is no more satisfactory way of dealing with it, but it really is a shock to learn that this position has existed since 1914 and has been continued for nearly 25 years and, as far as this House is concerned at any rate, almost in a state of absence of mind. I doubt whether individual Members in this House have realised that every year since 1920 they have been renewing these powers for a period of one year. I do not think they have realised what it was they were doing on each occasion and what responsibility they were taking, and, difficult as it may be, I should have thought that at the end of 25 years there was a case for investigating whether it would not be possible to put these matters on a considered legal basis as a permanency.
It is not right that people should be left without any rights at all or any knowledge of what their legal position is except that they are at the discretion of a Minister who is, of course, responsible to a House which could do nothing about it and could only interfere in an individual case by involving the fate of the Minister concerned and the fate of the Government, which would be a totally disproportionate thing to do. I am not prepared to oppose this matter at this stage, but I would like to have some assurance that it is not going to drag on in this indefinite, inconsequential way for ever, especially as many more people are involved at the present time than used to be. I would like to have some assurance that the question is being considered and that at some time or other, at a not too distant date, we shall be given by the Department some proposals that we can consider to see whether we cannot in some way restore this flotsam and jetsam of world revolution to the family of nations on a basis of some kind of equality with the rest of the world.

Mr. Graham White: The chances of Parliamentary procedure have led us almost unexpectedly into the


consideration of one of the most difficult and intractable human problems that we shall have to deal with as soon as the war comes to an end. There will be some 40,000,000 souls who will have to be transferred from one part of the world to another, and I rise merely for the purpose of saying that I think it would be a most lamentable thing, with regard to the attitude of this House and the deep feeling that has been aroused over the question of letting these escaped people come to our shores, if there were any doubt that we are not doing enough, and whether the Government are doing all they can to help them. This is an anxiety which is deepened and increased by the knowledge that if we say too much or, indeed, if we say anything at all, we may hinder the Government or do something contrary to the interest of those who are seeking to escape from the worst tyranny the world has ever known. There are many who would like to push the Government to do far more; there are many who are intensely dissatisfied with what the Government are doing, but what I rise for is to say that I think it would be a lamentable thing if we in this House should give the impression that we were thinking rather more of how we were going to get rid of these people than of helping them. We want to help them while the war is on and to do our utmost to help them when the war is over.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I would like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) has said. It is of the utmost importance that we should maintain the noble tradition that this country has maintained for centuries as a place of refuge for the oppressed and persecuted of every country. I am very glad at the sympathetic way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with the immediate situation, and we all feel confidence in that spirit with which the Home Secretary and all his colleagues wish to meet the very many complex difficulties that arise in respect of these our guests, some of whom I believe will, in the end, not be guests but will become most valued fellow citizens. In the past refugees have given to this country some of our most valuable citizens, men who have made great discoveries in science and astronomy and have contributed to art and music, to culture and industry. They came, or their

fathers or grandfathers came to us as refugees from other countries for freedom for their faith or political views. We shall always want to remember that when we try to deal with the exceedingly complicated difficulties connected with this problem.
With regard to the very interesting legal question which has been raised as to the position of the renewal of this Act, while it is undesirable at such a time as this to have any permanent Measure enacted, I hope that we may have from the Minister an assurance that the whole position will be considered in the future for a suitable occasion and that we shall not have an indefinite prolongation of a Measure which was conceived purely as a war-time enactment. I happen to be one of those Members who were present in 1914 when this Measure was originally carried, in the utmost hurry, through the House, and there was no consideration given that would ordinarily be given in Parliament to a Measure of this kind. It was conceived as a purely war-time emergency Measure. Then came the Act of 1919, which again renewed it only for a year, because that again was a time of confusion and not suitable for permanent legislation. We have gone on renewing it year after year. About five or six years ago, on a similar occasion on the passing of this Bill, I raised this very question, and then the Under-Secretary at the Home Office could not, of course, give an assurance himself, but the Home Office by that very fact was appraised of the position that this ought not to go on indefinitely without consideration being given to the preparation of a permanent Measure for a suitable date. It would not be right to ask the Government to promise such a Measure now or in the near future immediately after the war, but they should consider replacing this temporary war-time Measure by one suitable for permanent legislation and worthy of the great and noble tradition that this country has maintained for so many years.

Mr. Benson: I was rather depressed by the underlying implication of the speeches we have heard on the subject that this country must continue to remain an asylum for refugees. I am hoping that sooner or later there will be no need for asylum for refugees and that if we can get some reasonable settlement in Europe we


shall not have these miserable people being chased from one country to another and finally landing up in the great democracies as the only places where they can hope to escape from terror and the concentration camp. We do not hear of British refugees leaving Great Britain. At least we have not heard of it for many centuries. I think the Pilgrim Fathers were about the last. I hope that hon. Members will rather concentrate their minds upon the idea of seeing whether we can make Europe a place where our guests can live in comfort rather than that they should have to escape to us.

Mr. S. O. Davies: May I put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour a question on the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937. May we have an assurance that in regard to the schemes already approved by the Commissioner for the Special Areas which have been held up because of the war the sums of money necessary to carry out the schemes after the war have been earmarked and are fully covered by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill now before the Committee?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): My hon. Friend was good enough to write to me on 1st December, and he sent me with his letter the schedule of the schemes for the County Borough of Merthyr in which he is particularly interested. He wanted to know whether these schemes would go on when hostilities cease. I understand that no undertakings have been given that schemes that were approved by the Commissioner for the Special Areas before the war will be put into operation when hostilities cease. It is felt that it is impossible to give such an undertaking, because circumstances have changed so since then, and there may be many cases in which a scheme which was appropriate at that time will be no longer appropriate. In order to illustrate the point to the Committee, I need only mention the case of hospitals. I am not referring to any particular scheme, but to hospitals in general. The various discussions which are now going on with regard to the future of the medical service in this country make it clear that there may be alterations in plans that were made before the war. Therefore, I am afraid that, though

I would like to have been able to help my hon. Friend, it is impossible to give an undertaking on the lines he has asked.

Mr. Davies: I appreciate the difficulty of giving a general undertaking, but, in respect of schemes approved by the Special Commissioner as being necessary before the war, can we not assume, if circumstances have not changed, that these schemes will be carried out as originally intended at the end of the war?

Mr. Assheton: I did not want to deprive my hon. Friend of reasonable hopes. I merely did not want to give any undertaking which might be thought to commit the Government and which in the event would prove to be unwise.

Question, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance with amendment of principal Act.)

Mr. Lipson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "thirty-first day of December," and to insert "thirtieth day of June."
The Minister who is responsible for this Bill and those of us who are critical of it lave this in common, that we both regard the Bill as undemocratic and undesirable in its purpose and one that should not be allowed to be continued for a day longer than is absolutely necessary. It deprives municipal electors of a privilege which we value in this country and which is one which Parliamentary electors have. When this Bill has been before the Committee before and a similar Amendment has been moved the Minister responsible has used the argument that it was not unreasonable to ask that the powers under this Bill should be renewed for another year. In previous years there may have been something to be said for that argument, but to-day we meet at a time when we can see more daylight into the future, and the case for renewing this Bill for six months only instead of for a year is


very much stronger to-day than it was on any previous occasion. We want too, to have an assurance that the Government are taking the necessary steps immediately conditions permit to ensure that municipal elections shall be possible under proper conditions. Therefore, we feel that the circumstances are such that to-day we are justified in saying that the Bill shall be renewed this time for six months only to the date specified in the Amendment. If the conditions in that period are such that it is essential that the Bill should be renewed for another six months, it will not be difficult for the Minister to come down to the House and say so, and if he can make out his case, no doubt the powers will be given. If, on the other hand, the conditions are such that we might be in a position to say that the Bill should be brought to an end, as everybody desires, at the earliest possible date, then this Amendment would make it possible. I move the Amendment in the hope that it will be considered by the Minister as a reasonable proposal and that he will respond to it in that spirit.

Sir Percy Harris: My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), whose name is also down to this Amendment, is, unfortunately, prevented from being here at the moment. The Amendment deserves real sympathy. There is some sort of confused idea that this is following up the principle of the party truce, but it is made clear that it is nothing of the kind. It is suspending the right of the electors to have any say in the constitution of the local authority which administers the services for the particular area. There is an extraordinary number of anomalies. Complaints have been made about the selection in some boroughs. In my borough—I make no complaint about it—the constitution of the local authority entirely belongs to one party. That applies to a great number of boroughs. Some in London are entirely in the Conservative interests, while others are entirely Labour. The result is that no one can offer himself, however competent he is to discharge the duties associated with the administration of the area, because of his political opinions. That is rather a serious state of affairs. It is perhaps inevitable in war conditions, but that it should continue to

be absolutely necessary is rather a serious proposition.
Perhaps the hon. Member was optimistic in thinking that an opportunity will be available next summer, but the principle is there, and it would be a nice gesture if the Government could see their way to accepting this most reasonable compromise, so that after six months they could reconsider the proposal. I believe the whole Committee believes in local government. I know my hon. Friend does. There is no greater exponent of the principles of local government than he. After the lapse of some years it is destroying all interest in local government if the electors never have a chance to express their opinion, and it is something novel in our Constitution that local authorities should be able year by year to co-opt members, always being careful to see that only those are co-opted who belong to the predominant party. (An HON. MEMBER: "Not always.") There may be exceptions, but certainly in London it is so. Human nature being what it is, it is very natural if one body entirely commands the authority to see that no one is elected who does not belong to their political party. In my constituency there is no chance of a man, getting on the borough council unless he joins the Labour Party.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is as it should be.

Sir P. Harris: It is wrong in principle, and it strikes at the very root of our democratic system of local government.

Mr. Messer: I have never been able to understand why you can have by-elections for Parliament but not for local authorities. At present local government is completely unrepresentative, because the public has not been given an opportunity of making any choice.

The Chairman: The only question is as to the date. We ought not to extend the scope of the Debate any further. It may be possible on the Clause to say something on the lines of what I gather the hon. Member was going to say.

Mr. Messer: I was only going to say that there are so many features which everyone regards as undesirable that it would be desirable to remove them as soon as possible, and therefore there is


something to be said for consideration of the Amendment. I was trying to prove that there was a reason for the Amendment in showing that the undersirable features in the present situation are such as to justify an Amendment of this sort.

Mr. Mander: The Amendment really seems to me to fit in with the Government's own declaration of policy on the Second Reading. They intimated then that they were studying the situation and preparing for the time when elections could take place, and knowing the rapidity of action for which the Government are notorious, I could not help feeling that a period of six months ought to be more than ample to work out all the details of the new legislation and introduce it and pass it into law. In their own interests and to be consistent with their own record, they really should consider accepting the Amendment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give rather more information than was possible on the Second Reading. The Committee would like to have some sort of idea when it is proposed to introduce the Measure. Is it going to be during the period of the war, or is it to wait until afterwards, when things will have to be done in a tremendous rush? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that they are going to introduce it during the present Session. If he will tell us that, it will go a very long way to satisfy those of us who are anxious to see the matter put on a proper basis.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: The continuation of the present procedure would seem to be leading to an undue proportion of co-opted members. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us the present number of councils on which those co-opted are as many as 20 per cent. and 25 per cent.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): It would be impossible to answer that question without notice.

Mr. Mander: I asked a question a week or two ago for that very information, and the Under-Secretary for the Home Department said he would make such inquiries as he could and give us what information there was, so that it is not without notice.

Mr. Westwood: If my right hon. Friend gave that promise, I am sure that he is making the inquiries. I regret very much that owing to "flu" he is unable to be present to-day. There is an earnest desire on the part of everyone interested in local government to see the restoration of elections as early as possible. I made that clear on the Second Reading. If it were possible for me to say that the Amendment was practicable and reasonable, nothing would give me more pleasure than to accept it, but I know there is no desire to suggest anything that is impossible in the circumstances. There would be no object in proceeding by six monthly stages in dealing with this problem. If on 30th June it should appear that the suspension of local elections ought to be continued, a further suspension of the Bill would be necessary. But none of us know what the war position will be in June, and it might be an unnecessary using-up of the time of the House. On the other hand, if it should appear at any time during 1944 that local elections ought to be resumed, the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act might be repealed forthwith. The fullest consideration has been given to the suggestion, but we believe that it is impracticable and useless to accept the Amendment in existing circumstances, and I hope it will not be pressed. I again assure the Committee that there is an earnest desire on the part of the Government at the earliest practicable moment to restore local elections, believing as we all do that it is on our local government that we have actually built up the democratic system of which we are so proud.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain somewhat further what he has said? The principal argument that he has used for refusing the Amendment is that as the Clause now stands and as the Government now feel, if at any time during 1944 they think circumstances have so changed as to make elections possible certain steps will be taken. That is of course a very important point, which is bound to weigh with those who are sympathetic with the Amendment, but we must understand what it means. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the sort of circumstances that he had in mind when his carefully prepared statement was put together? What does


he foresee as the likely circumstances in which he would say, "Here is a Bill to amend the present Regulation"?

Mr. Westwood: The answer is very simple. I foresee nothing at the moment which would in any way justify us in allowing the Bill to operate for only six months. I am not a prophet. I cannot see the unforeseeable, but something that I and the Government cannot foresee might happen. It has always been understood that it is within the power of Parliament to repeal any Act that it has placed on the Statute Book.

Mr. Lipson: The right hon. Gentleman has given a pledge which I consider of some value. He has said that if circumstances permit, the House will be asked by the Government to repeal the Act. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Lipson: On a point of Order. I have on the Paper a proposed new Clause dealing with the new register. May I move it?

The Chairman: The hon. Member's Clause is out of Order.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Ammon: I rise only to repeat what I said on Second Reading and to express the hope that this is the last time we shall see this Bill. There cannot be the same need for suspending local elections as there is for suspending national elections, which are concerned with the conduct of the war. We have had some encouragement in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has just made. I only hope that those things which he cannot foresee now will emerge in the next few months and that he will be enabled to bring in a measure to repeal this Bill. There are not only the difficulties created by not having any local elections, but everybody is not abiding by the terms of the agreement. This does not apply to one side any more than another, but there are cases where a

majority on a council have taken advantage of their position to prevent somebody representing the party held by a retiring member coming in. That sort of thing causes ill feeling and brings the law into contempt. Rather than have a law on the Statute Book which it is impossible to enforce it would be better to abolish it. I enter a caveat against the Bill and sincerely hope we shall see the right hon. Gentleman standing at that Box in about another seven months moving to revoke it.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What I want to say follows on the remarks I made earlier and links up with what the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) has just said. We all wish that the circumstances will be such that my right hon. Friend will be able to do what he hopes to do, because this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is not only that one party or the other is inclined to exclude all opponents, although that is the way the game of politics is played. What I object to are, as I find in many council areas, little cliques within a party picking their own men to fill vacancies. That is the most objectionable of any form of public life. One understands a party on this side or the other inviting people of the same political description, but to have these little cliques and to have a man, because he happens to be provost of a place, bringing in his personal business friends, is something we all resent. This is the point I want to put to my right hon. Friend. If the war ends in six months we may be able to do a lot of things like revoking this Bill, but suppose the war does not end. Is there not a very strong case, even in the middle of the war, for repealing this Measure? It was the circumstances while the war was on to which I wanted my hon. Friend to address his mind. I can conceive of circumstances in six months, even if the war continues, which will fully justify the repeal of this Bill. Had my right hon. Friend that consideration in mind when making his statement?

Earl Winterton: I would like to express my entire agreement with what my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) has said and to thank him for the action he has taken throughout the Bill. I also want to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State


for Scotland for the conciliatory way in which he has met us. I want him to recognise that so far as the Tory and Socialist parties are concerned—I am not in a position to speak for the various sections of the Liberal party—the views which have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell and myself represent, not a con-census of opinion, but the unanimous opinion of Back Benchers. I venture to hope that the Minister of Health will draw the attention of the War Cabinet to the views that have been expressed on this Bill. If the war is going on this time next year and there is a repetition of this Bill, there will be much more opposition than there has been in the past.

Sir P. Harris: My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) with great modesty said he spoke for the Conservative and Socialist parties, but not for the Liberal party. I can assure him that he would have been on safe ground if he had included the three parties, or the four parties, or even the five parties, because the Independents take the same line. There is a frontal attack being made on local government. I am glad to see the Minister of Health here. He is fresh to Parliamentary life and to local government work and he comes to it with an open mind. I warn him that an attempt is being made by benevolent people in all political parties to undermine local government and to glorify bureaucracy, suggesting that i be run much more efficiently by keeping out the democracy, the ignorant public, the mob, who cannot run things so well as those able and competent commissioners, of whom the right hon. Gentleman was one for a short time, incidentally doing his work extremely well. I warn him that there is a danger if we postpone local elections year in and year out. If the public get out of the habit of taking an interest in local affairs it will weaken the whole structure of local government. We are pleading for something which we really care about. I had 28 years on a local authority and I think that they were the most profitable years of my life. In the House of Commons we pass Bills, some good and some bad. Their administration depends on having behind the work a good healthy public opinion. That can only be created by

elections and contests among the electors. I know that my right hon. Friend who represents the Scottish Office is with us. He has given a great part of his life to the study of local government and to local government work. There are people who are not so friendly to local government. Therefore, we want a definite assurance that it is the Government's policy without any unnecessary delay to restore the whole organization of local government, founded as it is on the democratic system of free elections.

Mr. Lipson: I do not claim to speak on behalf of any political party, but I can claim to be acquainted with the views of representatives of local authorities, having been associated with them for so many years. It must be obvious to the Government from the discussion in the House and in Committee that though this Bill will be given a Third Reading without a vote against it, there is obviously a strong feeling on the matter. I want to remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that he is in the Government as the special custodian of local government, and I hope that he will use his influence to see that the powers under this Bill are not continued a day longer than is absolutely necessary. Though we pass the Bill to-day we dislike it intensely and we hope that this is the last time we shall be asked to agree to it.

Mr. George Griffiths: I do not agree entirely with the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart). He has referred to cliques inside parties who co-opt members when there are vacancies on local authorities. I have been a member of a local authority for 32 years without a break, and I am still a member of the local urban district council. We have had changes since the war began but we have never had anything like cliques. If there has been a majority of Labour on a council it has always observed the principle propounded in this House that a co-opted member should be a member of the political party of the person who vacated the seat. I did not want it to go out into the country that what the hon. Member for East Fife said was the case all over the country. It is not the case in Yorkshire, if it is in Scotland. I want to tell the Minister of Health and the War Cabinet that the Urban District Councils Association, of whose executive I have been a member


for 12 or 13 years, ate very uneasy about the future of local authorities. If the House had not been sitting there was to have been an important conference in Yorkshire at which Members of Parliament were to meet the West Riding County Council, the North Riding County Council and the big boroughs in Yorkshire because they are afraid—and some of us are afraid also—that powers are to be taken away from local authorities. I want to enter one protest against the centre here. You cannot work everything from Whitehall. During the war there have been many times when the Government have had to take over because of the emergency, certain duties that have been performed by local authorities. There will be a great uproar from local authorities, from parish councils up to county councils, if the Government take any further powers away from them. I hope that we shall soon return to local elections. I have enjoyed my part in them. I have fought in them for about 40 years, and it is the spice of life in a locality to have elections. I enjoy a political fight, whether it be for a parish council or for Parliament. Life would not be worth living if you did not have a few fights. I say that although I am not very heavy—only about seven stone when wet through with a big top coat on. Elections also give the electors a chance, if the local authority in power are not carrying out their wishes, to turn them out. I wish the Minister of Health success—I expect I shall be a thorn in his side. I hope he will see that this is the last time this Bill will be brought forward.

Mr. McNeil: May I add another reason, which I am sure the Government have in their minds, why this state of affairs should be terminated as quickly as possible? A good deal of our reconstruction legislation will affect the shape and functions of local authorities. Much of it will, I hope, too, change the actual shape and conditions of our towns and villages. It is essential that as quickly as possible we should know what people locally think about the proposed changes in the functions of local authorities. I share the views already expressed by many hon. Members about the attack on local government. I know that both right hon. Gentlemen opposite have identified themselves with the preservation of the powers and functions of

local authorities, but I also know that we cannot expect what I would call the local government services to return to the pre-1939 position. No one wants that. We have in these circumstances to face up to changes in the scope and the powers of local government, and we must find out what our people think about it, not only because that is the democratic method of government but because the activities of this House will be abortive and inoperable if we impose duties or limitations upon local authorities which the people outside will not accept. If we want to get the local government machine into gear again as quickly as possible after hostilities we should at the earliest possible moment, and certainly before the close of hostilities, find out what people locally are thinking about the problems of reconstruction. I am sure that consideration is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, who has himself been an Assistant Commissioner.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I have nothing to complain of in regard to the tone of the speeches that have been made on all stages of this Bill. They have demonstrated a real desire by this House to have a restoration of local elections as speedily as possible, and I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is fully aware of his responsibilities in regard to this particular problem. I can also assure the House that attention will be drawn to the points that have been made during this Third Reading Debate, and to the earnest desire of the House to have local elections restored if possible in the course of next year. I am giving no pledge; I did not give it on the Second Reading. The hard fact is that we are at war. All I can say is that nothing will give me greater pleasure than to have the honour of standing at this Box to introduce the new local government Bill that will restore local elections, because it has been part of my duty to stand five times at this Box to deal with these particular proposals. It will give no one in the House greater pleasure than myself if I find before another 12 months elapse that there is no need for any further suspension of local elections, and that I may have the honour to bring forward the necessary Bill, complicated though it may be, to deal with some of the problems that will arise out of the temporary suspension for four years of those local elections. I


have spent a fair amount of my life in local government and am keenly interested in it. If anything was suggested by any Government that would seek to destroy the basis of local government and all it means they would have to get somebody else to stand at this Box to defend it, because I believe that local government is vital to the life of this country. I want to emphasise that this Bill is in no way a frontal attack upon local government, but merely a temporary provision made necessary by the war to suspend the elections. With that further explanation and thanking the House for the way in which it has debated this problem I sincerely hope that we may now get this Bill without a Division.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I beg to move,
That the Draft Supplementary Pensions (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) Regulations, 1943, made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction under Section 38 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, as applied by Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, a copy of which Draft Regulations was presented to this House on 1st December, be approved.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I was proposing to deal with this Motion and the other Motion, concerning unemployment assistance, together:
That the Draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) Regulations, 1943, made under Sections 38 and 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, a copy of which Draft Regulations was presented to this House on 1st December, be approved.
I shall deal very shortly with the second Motion, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service will be replying to this Debate and will be very much more capable than I am of dealing with any points arising under the second head. Earlier this week one of my right hon. Friends standing at this Box said the House was always fair. On this occasion I hope I may properly say that the House is often indulgent, and I hope that indulgence

may be accorded to me on my first opening of a matter of substance from this place. If I am not as lucid or as quick to answer questions which are put to me as I hope I may become, I trust the House will agree that it is very much better that I should be cautious to-day than that I should utter a single syllable which, through inadvertence, might cause disappointment to our old friends; and so if I am a little hesitant I think the House will agree that I am taking the right course.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Playing for safety.

Mr. Willink: Playing for safety with regard to our old friends, but not with regard to the House.

Mr. Tinker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has done very well on the back benches. Let him have no fear.

Mr. Willink: These Motions deal with a subject of real and deep human interest, but the matter is inevitably technical, and it is not one on which I can make much more than an expository speech in as short a time as I hope may be convenient and suitable to the matter. But technical though it is, and easy though it is to fail to imagine all possible combinations of circumstances which may arise under the new Regulations, I am very far from regretting that my first duty is to forward, promote and commend proposals made by the Assistance Board, a body for whose administration I have more than once from the back benches expressed my admiration, and to whose flexibility and ability tributes have been paid from all parts of the House. I recall in particular words that fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) recently as to the manner of administration of the officials of the Board. Another point upon which I feel some satisfaction is that I believe these Draft Regulations do reflect in very large measure suggestions which have been made in the course of earlier Debates and being of an optimistic, or at any rate not of a pessimistic, frame of mind I am hoping the field of controversy on these proposals to-day will be reasonably narrow, and that, broadly speaking, they will win the acceptance of the House.
As the House knows, it is being invited to approve two sets of Draft Regulations in place of those that exist at the moment.


The House is well familiar by now with the machinery under which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I present Draft Regulations in relation to supplementary pensions and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour presents Unemployment Assistance Regulations in the same way. The Drafts are in terms proposed by the Assistance Board and they commend themselves on this occasion to the Government. The House will remember that a promise was given that there should be simplification and codification. The White Paper issued in July last stated of the amending Regulations then before the House:
The Regulations have necessarily been cast in the form of additions to existing Regulations. In that form their meaning is inevitably difficult to follow. The Assistance Board are, however, engaged on the codification and simplification of the whole body of Regulations. This code will be available as soon as possible and will come before the House on a Motion which is, of course, debatable.
That is the stage which we have reached to-day. As things stand there are nine sets of Regulations, four with regard to one field and five with regard to the other. There is not only their number, but the fact that inevitably they have become progressively more complex and more difficult to understand, and it is a great move forward if we can achieve one set of Regulations in respect of each of these two most important subjects.
Of course, in this field and in this setting, simplification costs money. One is inclined to think of simplification and pruning—because this is largely a process of pruning from the existing Regulations—as being something which is economical, but, of course, in this field simplification is bound to mean in a substantial number of cases a levelling up. One cannot take off under present circumstances, and no one wishes to, and so simplification does inevitably mean that some cases will benefit rather more than others in the simplifying process. It is anticipated that, on the present register of supplementary pensions there will be an extra charge of £7,250,000 per annum. There are at present 1,475,000 supplementary pensioners. For unemployment assistance the extra cost on the present small register of about 25,000—thank goodness for it—is £200,000. Included in that figure of 25,000, I may mention in passing, are some 7,000 cases of special war distress that are dealt with

under what is commonly known as the P.R.D. Scheme.
I hope and believe that the course most convenient to the House will be for me to outline the principal simplifying changes roughly in their order of importance as matters of principle. There is no doubt that the first and most important change to which I should refer is this, that whereas the existing scales have always included an element for a notional standard rent, in the new Draft Regulations the scales proposed are on a basis to meet needs exclusive altogether of the question of outgoings on the house; what is called, for short, an ex-rent basis. The old system, into which I need not go, complicated though it was, had, for various reasons, become progressively more difficult for an ordinary mind to understand.
I must go into this, because this is the most important matter, probably, in the whole of the Draft Regulations, a little more fully. This is the matter which I would put in the forefront, the substitution of an ex-rent basis for a scale rate including a standard rent adjustable up or down according to rather complicated rules. When I refer to rent, it is rent in a technical sense—rent meaning, broadly speaking, outgoings on the house. The word "rent" and the phrase "net rent" appear in the Draft Regulations, and there is, of course, a clear definition in Part III of the Schedule, even though the matter may perhaps not have been made perfectly clear in the White Paper. One finds that "net rent" means the weekly proportion of the normal outgoings, less any proceeds of subletting, and that "outgoings" includes rates, a reasonable allowance towards any necessary expenditure on repairs or insurance, and other more detailed matters. There should be no misunderstanding; "Rent" does not mean rent. It means, broadly speaking, outgoings on the home.
So we start with these basic primary rates, which are the first matter that appears in Part I of the Schedule: "Amounts to be allowed for needs other than rent." For a married couple the amount is 35s.; where that rate does not apply, for an applicant living alone or who is a householder and, as such, is directly responsible for rent and household necessaries—20s. per week; and for any other applicant 17s. 6d. Perhaps I should just put in a word about the


difference between the 20s. and the 17s. 6d. We feel that that difference continues to be justified. Rent is shared frequently among members of a household and so, too, are overheads such as coal, lighting, heating, cleaning materials and so forth. There can be no doubt that a person living alone has to spend on those things more, in proportion, than have two or three persons living together. It is not so much that the Board have approached the matter of the difference by appraising that difference at 2s. 6d., as by saying that the reasonable figure to allow for such a person is half the rate for the married couple, which is 35s., and a half is 17s. 6d. We accept that figure, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Does the single person living with strangers get only 17s. 6d.?

Mr. Willink: That is just the type of question on which I am not going to be incautious, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will sympathise with me upon it. The point will be borne in mind, and an answer will be given.
I should like to say a word more on this question of rent. The rent allowance for applicants directly responsible for rent is, under an ex-rent scale, the actual rent within certain reasonable limits and the appropriate allowance is to be added in the early part of the calculation of the pension, before one comes to resources or statutory disregards or anything of that kind. There are, as the House is aware, and will continue to be, Local Advisory Committees. I believe there are something like 120 of them. They have advised, and they are going to be asked to advise again, though it will take a little time, on what are to be regarded as reasonable rents in the localities with which they are concerned. Rents vary widely from place to place and from time to time.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Even within the area.

Mr. Willink: Yes, within the area. I am obliged. That local advice is welcomed and valued by the Board. It is hoped that the great majority of cases will be covered within the limits recommended by the local advisory committees,

and adopted by the Board, but there are of course rents which are higher and some which are lower. I ought to say a word about both of those and I hope that I shall be able to express the point clearly to the House.
Before, however, I go into the low and high rents, may I take first of all the general situation, where the pensioner is responsible for the rent? The rent allowance to be added will, within the limits to which I have referred, be the actual rent. In other cases it will be a proportion, on the basis of the number in the household where he or she is living. The range here will be not less than half a crown or more than 7s. There is a small simplification or pruning of the complication of the existing Regulations in that that maximum of 7s. will apply not only to a married but also to a single pensioner, which was not the case before. There are certain other cases—I do not know how numerous—of people living rent free, not because they occupy their own houses or by virtue of service or employment, or anything of that kind, but by virtue of gift or charity. There is a problem here and the proposal is that persons living rent free in a house provided by charity will have their supplementary pensions adjusted as though they were paying a rent of 5s. or 6s. per week. These limits will be fixed.

Mr. Fraser: Will they apply to such persons as billetees who have been by order billeted in another area? Would they receive 35s. under this Regulation or 35s. plus 5s. of 6s. for rent?

Mr. Willink: I will have that point looked into and let the hon. Member know.

Mr. George Griffiths: That is to say, there is a half-crown minimum and a 7s. ceiling?

Mr. Willink: Yes.

Mr. Griffiths: That only applies to somebody who is living with somebody else and is not himself a householder? If there is a single person who is drawing the pension, living in her own house where she has been living for 20 years, her husband having passed away and where her rent is 10s., will she not get the 10s. on top?

Mr. Willink: That is my impression at the moment, but I should like an opportunity to confirm so that there shall be no fear of inaccuracy.

Mr. Griffiths: Thank you.

Mr. Mathers: The only point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give the new Minister a chance."]—The only point I want to put to the Minister is in relation to a person living rent free. Are we to understand from the Minister that notwithstanding that persons may be living rent free they will have subsistence allowance plus an allowance for rent, notwithstanding the fact that they pay no rent?

Mr. Willink: Yes, they will be treated as though they were paying a rent of 5s. or 6s. There must be some measure. It must be a difficult problem, how to deal with charitable resources, and the person living rent free is in that category. This is the general basis—I cannot carry it further—on which such cases will be handled.
I have said that it is hoped that the rent allowance in the great majority of cases will fall within the limits recommended by the local advisory committee and adopted by the Board, but there will of course be the high rents and the low rents. Let me first take the high rents, because I think they are simpler, although it may not be any easier in a sense to establish a satisfactory principle. I am satisfied that the Board fully appreciates that there are cases where high rent is inevitable, such as in new houses, special houses built during the war or special circumstances where the pensioner cannot move out or cannot conveniently sublet or properly be asked to sublet, and so forth. They can be dealt with, I venture to think, when the rent is in excess of the limit, only on a discretionary basis and in such a manner as to avoid hardship—the Board have to see that the part of the pension which is intended to meet needs other than rent is not eaten into.
The next question with which I should like to deal is that of the existing, but now obsolescent, low rent rules. Those low rent rules, as I understand the position, have arisen because there have been a substantial number of cases, no doubt varying from year to year, where the rent obligation was lower, perhaps very substantially lower, than the standard rent included in the old scale allowance and

there was a difficulty in satisfying either pensioners or hon. Members that in these cases there should be a reduction in the pension paid exactly commensurate with the amount by which the low rent was below the standard rent. Consequently recommendations were made, again by the local advisory committees, as to how that gap, that difference, between the standard rent and the actual low rent being paid, should be handled. Different advisory committees took different views. In London there are eight advisory committees. One might well find, by reason of a different view being taken of the proper low rent rule, that a pensioner might move from one part of London to another and might find a difference of as much as 2s. a week in the way that this question of his or her rent was handled.
There can be no doubt that inequitable anomalies arose in the operation of the low rent rules and, of course, on the basis that is proposed there will be no more low rent rules of this kind. It turned out that it was impossible to harmonise the views of the various localities and I cannot help thinking, with such knowledge as I have of this matter, that it is a good thing that they are to come to an end. What in fact happened was that those who were paying a very small rent got an anomalous financial advantage, as it were, by a side wind, by an illogical working out of the Regulations. What follows upon the abolition of the low rent rules is that the improvement in the rates will not benefit those who are losing the advantage of a local low rent rule to the same extent as other people who are not themselves at present getting the anomalous advantage of the rule. Consequently, if there were a strict and meticulous application of the new Regulations and the ex-rent basis without any low rent rule, there would be a few cases in which these new Regulations would actually result in a reduction to a certain number of persons. The Board have no desire that that shall occur, and I have their assurance that in any case where the abolition of the low rent rule would result in a reduction—I do not think it could be more than 3d. or 6d.—steps will be taken to ensure that no reduction is in fact suffered. Indeed I can give this general assurance on the whole scheme. There is at least one other case in which, on a strict application of the rules, there might


be a reduction. Any simplification involves cases which are not quite satisfactorily covered—in fact the more you simplify, the less you deal with the particular case. Consequently we continue to feel the necessity for the discretionary power and in no case—neither in connection with the low rent rules nor in any other case—will any pensioner suffer loss. The vast majority will of course benefit.
I think I can pass from the main rates and the ex-rent basis and go to the other matters set out in the White Paper in a way which I find lucid and helpful, and I hope the House think the same. The next point I would deal with is the abolition of winter allowances, which were given, as the House knows, for a certain number of months a year where there was an additional need due to winter conditions. The issue is a clear one. The Board have come to the conclusion, and they have a wonderful opportunity for getting to know the mind of the pensioner, that it would be to the taste and mind of the pensioner to have a regular income all the year round rather than this system of a special winter allowance. Of course it was pleasant when the increase came, but the pleasure was, I think, more than offset when the reduction came at the so-called end of the winter which was likely enough not to correspond with a change of temperature. It did not give the opportunity, which we are asked to take, of laying in a little fuel while prices were lower in the summer. In every way, both on the advice of the Board and in my own feelings about it, I like the idea that we should not regulate the lives of the old age pensioners to the extent which is indicated by special winter allowances. I hope that the House will accept this abolition.
The next point I would mention is the abolition of what is called, in technical language, rural differentiation. The abolition of rural differentiation means that there is pruned and cut out of the scheme a right of the Board to make certain reductions in rural areas. I need hardly say more on this subject. I think I can pass from it and save the time of the House. The proposal seems to me sensible and satisfactory and, for a number of reasons, I think it will meet with acceptance.
I pass to two points of simplification with regard to women. In the first place, up to now there has been a somewhat half-hearted differentiation between the sexes in certain parts of the field but not in others. There was no difference between men and women living alone. There was no difference between boys and girls, if I may so describe those up to the age of 21. But there were certain distinctions. It is now proposed that there should be no distinctions at all between men and women. The second point of difference proposed with regard to women is that there was a difference of one shilling between a pension given in respect of a wife who was herself a pensioner and a wife who was not herself a pensioner. It is proposed to do away with that distinction. That is another example of the pruning and simplification.
Finally, in this rather long catalogue of alterations and simplifications, there are the rates for children simplified and improved—a smaller number of age-groups. The new rates were anticipated to some extent by what the House did in the summer but there will be benefit from the present Regulations to a number of widows, particularly those with older children.

Mr. Tinker: On page 8 of the Memorandum giving the scales it says:
Widow paying 8s. rent—with one child aged five, normal rate 33s., rate increased by winter allowance, if granted, to 35s. 6d. under present arrangements. New rate throughout the year 34s.
I hope that in the winter period she will not be brought down to 34s. from 35s. 6d. I do not think it does mean that, but I would like the Minister to make it clear.

Mr. Willink: No one will be brought down before 29th April.

Mr. Buchanan: I admit that no one can be brought down now until the winter allowance ends. The point is that next winter she will then be 1s. 6d. per week worse off than she will be this winter. Is the sum to be restored? Is the winter allowance to be cut say after this period passes through to another one?

Mr. Willink: The answer is that there will be an all-the-year-round rate once her reassessment comes into effect. She is not going to be brought down this winter.

Mr. Buchanan: But next winter she will be 1s. 6d. worse off than she is this winter.

Mr. Tinker: I understand that no particular case at any time will be brought to less than what they are getting now.

Mr. Willink: Neither counting by the week nor by the year will any existing pensioner suffer.

Mr. Buchanan: I admit that the Minister has made that clear beyond doubt, that a widow now receiving that sum receives it to the end of winter-time when that assessment comes to an end. She then loses that amount. Does that mean that next winter the same widow is worse off to the extent of having been reduced by reason of the assessment on the reduced level?

Mr. Willink: It depends how you count. She will get more next summer than last, and less next winter than this, but her average for the year will not be less than it is now.

Mr. Buchanan: The point is that she will get less next winter than she is getting this winter.

Mr. Willink: Having had more next summer. I was about to pass to a special point with regard to the children's allowances. I expect it has not escaped the attention of some hon. Members that there is the possibility of a collision between the Ministry of Pensions rates and the Assistance Board rates in this connection. The two sets of rates are devised on different principles and properly so, I think. One is in the method of dealing with rents up to 8s. That is quite different in the case of the Ministry of Pensions. Secondly, the rates for children are based on entirely different principles governing the treatment of the first, second and third child. On the whole the Ministry of Pensions rates work out at a higher average than the Board's rates, and I think that it is in accordance with the mind of the House that they should [Interruption]. Well, perhaps no, perhaps that can be left on one side. But it is possible that some widows will be able to get more from the Board under these new scales than they would be getting from the Ministry of Pensions. It is only in a few cases, but there are a few such cases that I think would be felt

to be inappropriate. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions to say that he is taking power under the new Royal Warrant to bring the aggregate benefits to which a widow is entitled under the Warrant up to the amount of the widow's contributory pension, children's allowances and supplementary pension to which otherwise she would be entitled.
I pass from these simplifications and turn for one moment to the treatment of resources. As the House well knows, almost alll the headings are statutory and may not be altered on the initiative of the Board. There is one important change, a substitution for the rather difficult and complicated rule with regard to earnings. It is the easily understood provision that 10s. 6d. per week will be allowed in future.
I doubt whether the House wants me to go into the details, which are pretty well known, as to the time it will take to bring these Regulations into force. It is bound to take time if there are to be reassessments on this scale.

Mr. Stephen: With regard to this 10s. 6d., suppose the old age pensioner is doing a little jobbing work somewhere and is earning 10s. 6d., and suppose his wife is doing a little charing and getting 10s. 6d. I am not quite clear whether the whole 21s. will be excused or the earnings of the applicant. The reference to the allowance of the first 10s. 6d. a week is
from the earnings of the applicant or the applicant's wife or husband.
It is "or" not "and".

Mr. Willink: The answer is that they will get two 10s 6d. in the situation envisaged by the hon. Member.
I was going to say a few sentences with regard to the Unemployment Assistance Regulations. My right hon. Friend is here and will be replying to the Debate. The simplification and pruning of the Regulations is on the same lines, and much of what I have said applies to them. There will be no reduction in any existing case, and the new children's rates will be a substantial benefit. It is because the Government believe that these Regulations as proposed will, if they are accepted, be of real assistance and benefit to those who will be affected by them


that they have introduced them. Incidentally—this is far less important, though it is important—these Regulations will be of very great convenience to Members of this House and others who advise and help old people and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We accept these Regulations, because they mark another step forward in the treatment of our people who are drawing old age and widows' pensions. I feel that Members will join with me in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the manner in which he has introduced these Regulations. He has set himself a high standard, which has been good to see after some of our previous experiences, and I hope that I shall be able to maintain that standard. I want to make a request to him. I think it is one of the organic weaknesses of this House that questions which are asked in the House, by Members well-versed in their subjects, are not given the attention that they should receive from Ministers. I think we have suffered more from this during the war than we did previously, and that much friction could be avoided in the administration of the social services, in particular, if more notice were taken of questions which are raised in this House. I believe that most hon. Members, and I speak for my hon. Friends in particular, try to be as helpful as possible in raising points on matters of this kind. From now onwards the Minister should be determined that questions which are asked, on these matters in particular, will get the best possible attention, so as to avoid unnecessary friction in their administration.
The operation of the vicious means test created domestic friction for at least 10 years, and some of us, because of the effects on our relatives and friends, are still smarting. One of the best friends I ever had, a great craftsman, was forced to commit suicide because of the domestic friction which arose out of the terrible effects of that means test. Only people who have gone through it, or have lived with people who have suffered from it, can realise what it has meant. We have my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) to thank for the change which has been brought about from the means test to

the determination of needs. Since its introduction, that system also has been gradually improved. We still suffer from the legacy of the means test days, but we hope that the effects will be eliminated. Before the war we pleaded for years for the abolition of the means test, and also—and we are pleased with the increasing support we have received in the House—for an increase in old age and widows' pensions. Before the war we made no headway; we had nothing but discouragement; we were up against a stone wall; but since 1940 we have made substantial progress, although we have not yet reached the position that our fellow-countrymen deserve. It would be wrong not to place on record our tribute to our democratic institutions for the fact that while we have been fighting for our lives, we have made such progress. These Regulations have gone through a process of simplification. We appealed for that for a long time. It was urgently required. As a result, the cost of administration will be reduced, better understanding will be created among the applicants, and much friction will be avoided. The Explanatory Memorandum says, on page 2:
The new scales are presented on an 'exrent' basis; that is to say, they are sums intended for needs other than rent, to which a reasonable allowance for rent will be added.
I shall make some observations on that later. In regard to the winter allowance, I want to plead guilty to this: I was one of those Members who pressed for the introduction of such an allowance. It has not worked out satisfactorily, and, therefore, we welcome this new procedure. The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to say:
The provisions relating to rural differentiation have been dropped.
My hon. Friends will certainly welcome that. The rates for women have been made to correspond with the rates for men. My hon. Friends welcome that, and hope that it will be applied generally, in other matters. The distinction between the rate for a wife who is a pensioner and that for a wife who is not has been dropped. My hon. Friends will have some comments to make on that. On page 4, the Memorandum says:
Representations have from time to time been received to the effect that pensioners should be put in a position to lay in stocks of coal during the summer.


Then it goes on:
These and similar recommendations indicate a preference for a system under which pensioners are assured of a regular income throughout the year and are left free to adjust their expenditure for themselves.
Many of my hon. Friends have been party to those representations, and we welcome this improvement. But you cannot get much coal for 2s. a week. In the winter, especially the kind of winter that you have North of the Trent, you certainly need more than one bag of coal. Page 7 says that the broad effects of Regulations made in terms of the Draft would be to bring all supplementary pensioners who have no resources beyond their primary pensions up to certain figures. We shall have some questions to ask later about that. On page 9, the Memorandum states that the new Regulations would come into force on 17th January. Could not a special effort be made to apply the new Regulations, say, in the first payment in the new year. I know I am asking a lot, but our fellow-countrymen have been asked a lot for four years, and they have worked miracles in industry.
Such a change as I ask would have a good effect, and I and sure that if a request was made from this House for these improvements to be introduced in the first payments in the new year the staff of the Board would do all they could to bring it about. The Draft dealing with the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act says:
In any other case (unless there are special circumstances) add a reasonable share of the rent payable by the person with whom the applicant is living, but not less than 2s. 6d. nor more than 7s.
Could we, before we part with these Regulations, be given some examples of how that will apply?

Mr. Willink: Where was the passage which the hon. Member quoted?

Mr. Smith: I am sorry. It was from page 2 of the Draft Regulations, dealing with the introduction of supplementary pensions—in the Schedule, Part I, Subsection (2), paragraph (b). The other point I want to make relates to the statement that if the applicant is aged 21 years or over, he will be allowed 15s. I received a letter this morning from the secretary of an old age pensioners' association. The best thing I can do is to read an extract. This is from a man who has paid special attention to this question, in one of the biggest centres in London:

May I point out that there are a few pensioners who have dependants who are incapable of doing anything for themselves, some mental and some physical? I hope they will be dealt with under the old scale.
Is this 15s. considered sufficient for an adult dependant, and, if not, is it intended that the discretionary grant should be applied in cases of that kind? If so, can we have some assurance that there will be uniformity in the application of that discretionary grant to adult dependants?
Little attention is apt to be paid to the Unemployment Assistance Regulations at this time, but they will govern the unemployed of the future. While that may not be a big issue at present, I am convinced that unless there is a radical change in the outlook of most people in this country, including most Members of this House, with regard to our future economy and organisation, we shall have a repetition of the pre-war situation. Therefore, we are bound to be concerned about these Regulations. A married couple, according to Part I, on page 2, will receive 31s. a week. We are allowing this to go through to-day only on the clear understanding that we are not satisfied with these amounts. Seeing that the people of this country have been prepared to render service to save the country as they have during the war, the least the country can do is to go to their assistance in peacetime, when they suffer as a consequence of economic disturbance for which they as individuals have no responsibility. Although we are allowing these Regulations to go through, I hope that that is clearly understood. Under the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Regulations a married couple with no resources, with supplementary pensions, will receive 35s. a week, plus the appropriate rent allowance. What is the appropriate rent? It is true that the passage occurs:
Reasonable rent having regard to the general level of rents in the locality.
Later, the word "reasonable" is used again. Those of us who have had experience of the work of some advisory committees have not much confidence as to how this is going to be administered. The Minister states that there are about 120 of these committees. I hope that when these Regulations go through, the responsible authorities will review the personnel of these committees. In some


parts of the country they are not functioning as well as they should. Our experience teaches us that Parliament should insist on a national interpretation, as far as that can be made, of what is a reasonable rent. I hope that a circular will be sent out, giving a definition, for the guidance of the local advisory committees, as clearly as possible, and that we shall have uniformity, as far as possible, in the administration.
The present housing shortage makes the position more difficult than it would be in normal circumstances, for houses cannot be obtained to-day, many people are having to live in rooms in large houses, and many of them are paying a relatively high rent. We are entitled to know, therefore, in circumstances of that kind, what will be considered a reasonable rent. The position has been further intensified by the air raids and by the large number of houses that have been demolished or have been made uninhabitable, and, in addition to that, there is congestion in many of the industrial areas, in particular, because of the large numbers of people who have had to move to those areas to make their contribution to our war effort. Therefore, the only way out for these people is to take rooms in large houses, and we are entitled to know to-day what is considered to be a reasonable rent in circumstances of that kind. Some municipal rents vary between 10s. and 16s. a week, and we have at last got national scales so far as the benefits are concerned. That takes us a step further, but can we have a national, clear interpretation of what is considered to be an appropriate rate? Will uniformity in its administration be brought about throughout the country?
In regard to the discretionary grants, is the Minister satisfied that there is the same kind of administration on this basis in each area? As a result of the introduction of this new and simpler method of calculation, I was going to ask the Minister whether anyone will receive one penny a week less as the result of its introduction, but I understand that the Minister has already assured us that no one will suffer any reduction at all. However, we would like that further cleared up when the reply is made. I hope that we can have a clear and definite reply to-day as to whether anyone will receive a reduction next week or whether applicants next winter

will be treated any differently from what they are to-day.
Can copies of all circulars sent out for the guidance of Assistance Board officers be placed on the table of the Library of this House and in each local library? I would like to repeat that, because I think it will assist if it can be done. Can copies of the circular which are sent out for the guidance of the Assistance Board officers be placed on the table of the Library of this House and in each local library, so that the applicants for benefits and supplementary pensions can go and read them for themselves? I understand the Board has recently published a very fine book for the advice of their officials. It will be necessary now for this book to be brought up to date, and can those Members of this House who are interested in this matter be provided with a copy of that book when it is brought up to date, if they so desire? We accept these Regulations to-day because we want the old age and widow pensioners to benefit from the urgently needed improvements as soon as possible. Having said that, let me emphasise this: We hope that the scales contained in these papers will not be used as a basis for fixing future benefits in any comprehensive social security scheme that is to be introduced.
The Royal Warrant provides for payment in the case of the death of an officer of £36 a year for a child, plus an allowance for its education. For the widow of an officer a pension of £210 a year is provided, making the payment per annum of £318 for a mother and four children. It would take an old age pensioner, on the flat rate, 12 years to draw the amount that a widow with four children draws in 12 months. On the maximum supplementary pensions it would take three years for our mothers and our fathers to draw that amount after they had worked for 50 years, and yet it is said that a payment of £318 per annum for a mother and four children creates a financial crisis of extreme gravity for the family. According to the newspapers this morning, we find that a Resolution was carried yesterday, with only one dissentient, which said that the widow of a commander with three children had to keep four people on £318. I am not making any reference to another place; all that I am doing is quoting from a newspaper report which appeared this morning dealing with a speech which was


made yesterday. While we realise that it would be out of Order to refer to what took place in another place, we are in Order in referring to a speech which is reported in this morning's newspapers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): The hon. Gentleman is inaccurate there. He may not refer in that sense to a speech which has taken place in the other place. Although it appeared in a newspaper, it is really a report of the speech.

Mr. Smith: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am not referring to another place. All that I was doing was referring to a speech that is reported in this morning's newspapers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman referred to a speech in the other place, and that is what I objected to. That is where the hon. Gentleman is out of Order.

Mr. Smith: I shall not pursue that point. I are bound to take notice of it, and knowing that I am on very delicate ground in raising this at all, and not desiring to conflict with the rules and regulations and with the Chair in particular, I spent some time this morning in reading Erskine May in order that I could deal with this subject in the way this House demands that such matters should be dealt with.
We welcome the gradual elimination of the old cap-in-hand spirit in this administration. We are gradually eliminating that spirit, and this is going to give great satisfaction. We welcome the gradual cutting-out of charity. We want our people of this country—and they have earned it as a result of their war record, quite apart from what they have done throughout history—to have rights and not charity, and these improvements which are gradually being brought about—another instalment is before us now—are gradually cutting out the old cap-in-hand spirit, which is a legacy of the old days. We accept these Regulations and look forward to the publication of the White Paper on the future of our social policy.

Mr. Buchanan: I rise to say a word or two on these Regulations, and I suppose it is the custom throughout the Debate for almost all of us to refer to the new Minister of Health.

I have been here a good deal longer than most, and hon. Members will excuse me if I reserve my remarks about the Minister for the end of his career and not the beginning. I will say quite frankly that I hate this false praise by Members that starts when a man takes office and turns to kicks when he meets adversity. Personally, I would sooner give praise to a Minister who is getting a kick or two. I judge the Minister of Health, as I judge all people, not by his preliminary speech, but by his record of work that he will accomplish during his term of office. If he accomplishes that, he will be entitled to praise not only from me, but from the House generally.
I would say a word or two about the Regulations themselves. These things are beginning to remind me of unemployment insurance in pre-war days. Two or three times each year we discuss the question of old age pensions and the Regulations dealing with old age pensions, and I forget the number of discussions we have had in this House since 1940, but they have been very numerous since then, and each time we attempt to do something back comes the discussion in another form in a comparatively short while. Here we have to-day an effort being made more or less to dispose finally of the subject, because, let us have no doubt about it, the meaning of the Government's proposals to-day is really an effort finally to dispose of the old age pensioners' claims, and I want to say that much as the Government may desire to do that, the Government alone do not determine that matter, and neither does the House of Commons. It is inevitable that the people outside who are affected will have some say in that matter and will use their ordinary capacity to bring pressure on Members, which must to some extent guide Members in their future attitude in this matter. I would therefore ask Members to be careful in welcoming these proposals as something final and settled.
Let me say a word or two about the general outlook. As I understand the proposals, they are an attempt to simplify the present administration and to make it easier of understanding, to make it easier for the officials to run it and, I think, easier for it to be understood. In so far as it accomplishes that, everyone must welcome anything that makes for simplification and easier understanding. The


second thing that they do is to attempt to adjust some of the anomalies that are now obviously in force in this scheme. There is the anomaly about the rent, and I want to say a word or two later about this rent business, because to me it is not nearly so clear as some people would have me believe. At the present, time, anyone who cares to take the slightest interest in this issue knows that even officials often have the greatest difficulty in obtaining a clear understanding of what the rent really is, and when you visit the offices of Assistance Boards and see officials with quite a mass of interpretations, each one varying and each one conflicting with the other, anything that abolishes that kind of confusion, even from the official view, does not make for a bad improvement.
Then there is the other issue, that we have now abolished certain differentiations in regard to the pensioner. These were indefensible things that could never be justified on any grounds of equity or decency. We have now abolished the line of difference between the rural and non-rural policy. In my view a decision must be made in the future about the separate schemes for agricultural and rural workers and that of other workers in connection with unemployment insurance. I took the view—and four or five of us voted in the Lobby on the matter—that, with the coming of the motor car and the constant conflict of every day occupations, there was no difference between the rural population and the urban population, and that there should be an approximation of the two schemes with regard to unemployment.
I was never enthusiastic about the winter allowance. I did not defend it as a winter allowance but only because it brought another 2s. 6d. for the old people. I have constantly taken the view, representing great masses of poor people, that any ingenious way of increasing their incomes was justifiable. The winter allowance was an ingenious method, for a temporary period of augmenting their incomes. I often used to wonder, when in Scotland, why there was a winter allowance as such because sometimes some of the most severe weather in the year was after the winter allowance had been stopped. It did not cease to be winter merely because the winter allowance stopped. I have experienced round about the end of March and in April weather as

severe as any during the time that the winter allowance was in operation. With the winter allowance there came a discrepancy. Large numbers of people did not receive it if they had other resources. A person who had resources from a trade union or friendly society or an income of a limited kind did not share in the winter allowance. This new scheme brings them out of that category. But what does the assistance amount to at the end of the day? The question is how an old age pensioner or a widow with children can exist on a specific sum. The Government are making these improvements, but at the end of the day you come back to the issue that these improvements do not raise the lot of the old age pensioners and the widows to a standard which makes us proud of Britain's standards of life. Much as we may clothe it, I still think that the standard falls short of what I would like it to be to enable our old people to live in human decency. It has been my invariable experience that when Government Departments are handing out something that is said to be an improvement there always sems to be an inevitable kink in the Department which prevents them from giving the improvement properly and generously.
I want to say something about the rent rule. I thought when I read it that the scheme was simple. It is easy to understand the simple case of a man or woman with no resources. It is £1, plus rent, provided the rent is reasonable. What is a reasonable rent? The fact is that when these old people live in a house the rent that they have to pay is a reasonable one because they have no alternative but to pay it. Is it to be argued that they should all be shifted from their abode? If an old couple continue to live in a three-apartment house where formerly a young family lived which has now dispersed, is the Department to come along and say, "The rent is a somewhat high one and out you must go"? That is the kind of thing that irritates. It is not really the full rent in each case.
This is one of the things which, under the old Regulations, used to irritate, not so much because of the amount of the allowance, but because of the method of approach. I used to think when we passed an Act we really meant what we said. I was simple in those days and did not thoroughly understand. I am still


simple, and when I see some hon. Members I wonder how I got in here. When people received £1 disability pension it meant that they got no winter allowance, and under this new scheme a man who has resources of £1 a week disability pension or income will not get his full rent if his rent is a high one, but he is going about thinking that he will. It is not making it a simple scheme. It is just another device for the official to screw up his brow when examining the poor applicant and show how intelligent he is. Even now the right hon. Gentleman cannot do the thing right. It should be without qualification and he should say that he means the rent that a person has to meet under existing circumstances, but he does not do that.
I never join in attacking officials running the Assistance Board. I know the officials in my native city possibly as well as anybody, and in personal approach I regard the changed system as being better than the system of the old Poor Law, but still we must bear the Poor Law in mind. We must not be uncharitable even towards the Poor Law. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) said something about cap-in-hand. The old Poor Law in my native city had many qualities as well as abuses, and in many cases the officials were not deserving of the kicks they received. But I welcome the present change. I welcome the change particularly for the widow, but I would ask my hon. Friends on the Labour benches not to be too gushing to-day in their reception of these proposals. They must keep them in their proper proportion. They are not awfully good or something that the Labour Party can really applaud as having accomplished. I take the view that women with children have even a greater claim than almost any other section of the population. I take the view, for good or for ill, that when we get past a certain age our claim is not as good as the claim of the children. What are we doing with regard to widows? I would ask the Minister and those responsible to be a little kinder to these widows. In my native city of Glasgow—and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) will bear me out—the Poor Law people to-day are paying on an average all the year round as much to the widow as we are now proposing to do under this Regulation, and in some cases actually more, and in addition these

Poor Law authorities act in a very generous way in the supply of clothing such as woollen garments. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland has now come into the Chamber. Actually today in Lanarkshire and in the City of Glasgow the scales in regard to widows and young people are higher than the proposed scales.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman in introducing the Regulations made great play of the fact that nobody was to be reduced. That was ethically true, but it does not convey the correct picture. He gives to the widow, who I have said should have first claim, 34s. plus rent. I would ask any man, what woollen garments can be bought in Scotland at present prices on an income of that kind? I have no children of my own, but there are some for whom I have a responsibility. I went to a store to buy some woollen garments, and the price astounded me, out of my income, to say nothing of the proposed income of a widow with children. There should be an addition to these scales for clothing, because I am convinced that there are epidemics caused not merely by food but to some extent by the lack of good warm clothing.
The widow will get the same amount up to a certain date in March as she would have got, but what happens after March? Next winter she will get 1s. 3d. It would have been 1s. 6d., but the Board has beaten me by 3d. They would have lost 3d. a week on the 52 weeks. Next winter the widow with young children will be 1s. 3d. a week worse off than this winter. It is true that it will be made up in the summer-time to approximate to the winter. I know that the Regulations will pass. I admit that they are on a better business basis and improvements have been made, but I would ask that regard should be paid to the widow with children and that there should be an allowance for clothing in addition to the scales, and that no widow next winter should be asked to live on a less allowance than she is living on this winter. I shall not divide against these things. They mark a businesslike improvement and a meagre improvement in money, but I hope the House and the Government will be under no illusion that this marks a final settlement of the problem. The war may end quickly or it may be prolonged—we do not know—but if it


should end, these Regulations will became of first-class importance in next to no time, and we are allowing these scales to pass which are a disgrace for normal human people to live upon. I was not present at the famous Debate last week. I was in a more comfortable place—in bed—but I read the Debate. The House was worked up on the issue of one man. To-day there is not the excitement. We have smaller numbers, and we are calmer. The issue last week may appear to some to be terribly important, but I think the conditions of the widow with children at least equally important, though they may not get the headlines.

Mr. Brooke: We seem to have got into an atmosphere of personal caution. The Minister said he was going to be cautious in his statement, and the hon. Member has reciprocated by saying he was going to be cautious in his praise, though fortunately later, led away by his usual humanity, he threw caution to the winds. I hope he will join with me in this at any rate—in congratulating the Minister on the clarity, and the courtesy to the House, with which he introduced these new Regulations. We are offering a really big thing to supplementary pensioners. You can tell that by looking at the figures. The cost of supplementary pensions hitherto has been £44,000,000 a year. If these Regulations are endorsed the cost is likely to rise to £51,000,000, an increase of something like 16 per cent. That may not be all, because with the growing number of old people it might be expected that the figures would continue to increase year by year. My hope is that that will not be the case, but that we shall manage our affairs so well as years go on that the needs of poverty will diminish. That is the policy of the party to which I belong, to bring about a state of affairs where property, resources and savings are more and more widely spread, so that it will become less and less necessary to relieve poverty by supplementary payments of this kind. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) said he was not satisfied with the amounts. I am sorry he said that, because I could not help feeling that politics was creeping into it. In one sense none of us are satisfied with the amounts. None of us, when we are brought face to face with a case of poverty and need, are satisfied when we have to

stop at a fixed limit in relieving it, but it is necessary to have rules. These rates proposed by the Assistance Board are quite materially above those which Sir William Beveridge calculated were adequate for subsistence at the present cost of living.
It strikes me as well worth while that we should give a trial to the abolition of winter allowances. Like the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) I was one of those, though I was not in the House at the time, who were anxious that the Unemployment Assistance Board, as it then was, should introduce a system of winter allowances, for fuel needs and so on. I still think it was right then, but I am inclined to think that the abolition of the system is right to-day, because there has been a great improvement in the general scales and so it is no longer necessary to add a bit extra for this or that additional seasonal need. The amounts that are now to be fixed give a greater general margin and it seems to me desirable that we should even the figures out over the year and give pensioners the maximum amount of freedom in deciding the way they spend their money.
We are in these Regulations proposing to equalise the treatment of women and men. I am sorry to look round and see that there is not a lady Member here. It strikes me as right that we should be doing this. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present, to take a hint from us and to realise that the House in general believes that the needs of women and men are the same in living expenses. As regards the rates for children, what I like here is that we are being more generous to the older child. The former rates seemed to me reasonable for younger children, but on the low side for older boys and girls. Under the new Regulation the rate for a boy or girl of 12 or 13, which used to be 6s. 3d., is to be increased to 9s., a very considerable and very welcome improvement to many families.
As regards the treatment of rent and the new decision that rent is to be left outside the scales, I thought the hon. Member for Gorbals was a little uncharitable. He started pulling it about and objecting to the word "reasonable." It is not a good word for him to object to. He knows that we could not have an absolutely unqualified rule that the full amount


of rent should be added on to the basic payment, whatever kind of accommodation the applicant chose to live in. That would be absurd.

Mr. Silverman: If the State permits a landlord to charge a rent which it regards as unreasonable, why in fixing these weekly amounts should not the State pay an amount of subsistence deemed to be necessary and the rent in addition to that which it permits the landlord to charge?

Mr. Brooke: I recommend the hon. Member to go and read the Beveridge Report, where he will find a very interesting discussion on the extent to which the rent paid is a matter of necessity or a matter of choice. Sir William Beveridge comes down—I am sure he is right—on the side that in the generality of cases the amount of rent is a matter of necessity, but that to some extent also it may be a matter of choice, and you must defend the Exchequer against those cases—they may be a minority—where people are deliberately living in accommodation more expensive than they truly need. I see no reason why in those cases, if there is more reasonable accommodation available, the State should be called upon to pay the full rent of the expensive premises where they are.

Mr. Silverman: Suppose there was not?

Mr. Brooke: If there was not, I have not the slightest doubt, in view of what has been said to-day and what has happened hitherto, that the Board's officials would not arbitrarily reduce payments. [Interruption.] This is clearly a matter on which we may have to have future discussions, for hon. Members read the Regulations in one way and I read them in another. Fortunately we have reached a point—I have noticed a growing recognition of it in the Debates on these matters in recent years—when the actions of the Board are regarded as reasonable, and not arbitrary and unreasonable, towards applicants.
What I welcome most in the new rent rule is that it will be understandable. The old rules, whatever their logical justification, were extraordinarily difficult for the average man or woman to comprehend. I agree that it is not simplicity itself, but it is vastly more simple than we have had before. One of the most

important actions which the Government and the House can take towards breaking down any lack of confidence there may be between Parliament and the general public is to simplify Regulations which affect the ordinary uninstructed man or woman. Judging by the speech which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health made to-day, he will not be one of those Ministers who need a public relations officer to boost him. He can be his own public relations officer if he will throughout simplify and make easily intelligible the Rules and Regulations which he asks Parliament to apply to the ordinary man and woman. I believe I will carry the whole House with me in saying that.
I want to say a word about what are called in the jargon the "statutory disregards." I cannot help thinking that the Assistance Board must get angry with us in Parliament sometimes for the awful mess in which we have left these statutory disregards. The Board has made a genuine attempt to clear up its own Regulations so far as that is within its power, and then, when one turns to pages 3 and 4 of the Draft Regulations, one finds this extraordinary conglomeration of different disregards according as the resources come from one quarter or another. There was reasonable justification for each of these statutory disregards when they were first enacted, but I suggest to the Government that it would be thoroughly welcome if in the near future the Acts were overhauled and that part of the administration of supplementary pensions in its turn was simplified.
There is a last point which I would specially like to bring to the attention of the Government. It does not require any alteration in the Draft Regulations because it is a matter which, I understand, lies within the discretion of the Board. In the 1943 Act we increased the amount of the disregard in respect of a superannuation payment from 7s. 6d. to 10s. 6d. per week. I confess that I thought, when we were doing that, that it would apply equally to this kind of case. Suppose a firm has some kind of benefit scheme or pensions scheme for its employees. In many instances these schemes are so worked that if the man dies before the wife the widow shall receive a continuance of pension. That continued pension has undoubtedly been earned by her late husband's services with his employers.


The man's pension is disregarded as to 10s. 6d. a week, but because of certain words in the 1940 Act the Board has not hitherto felt able to treat on the same basis a pension paid to a widow of a retired employee, and has disregarded 7s. 6d. only. The words which define a superannuation payment are—
A payment in respect of previous service or employment from which the recipient has retired or resigned
Clearly those words do not cover the case of the widow, for she herself has not been employed. At the same time, there can be no doubt that the payment she receives has been earned by her husband's services. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be right procedure if, in such cases as that, the disregard was at the same rate throughout, whether the pension is being paid to the man during his lifetime or paid to the widow after his death. I hope that the Government or the Board will give further consideration to that point.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I agree with what some of my hon. Friends have said about the improvements suggested in these Regulations, but I would prefer to call them pointers towards better things in the immediate future. I agree in principle with fixing the scales independently of rent, and I am pleased to see that at last the discriminatory winter allowances are to go. The explanatory memorandum tells us that latterly about 60 per cent. of the pensioners have been receiving these allowances, and I know of some winter periods since they were introduced when 50 per cent. of old age pensioners received them at one time. I am glad they are gone. I am also pleased that the discrimination between the rates applying to men and those applying to women have been removed; also that rural differentiation will no longer exist, for that was one of the most unjustifiable anomalies that has ever been forced among the abundance of anomalies that have characterised the Acts and Regulations relating to pensioners and unemployed. We are glad, too, that there are to be some slight increases, for what they are worth, in the rates for children. In accepting these things let us hope they are regarded by the Government as promising pointers in the right direction.
I am still not satisfied with the explanation, either by the right hon. Gentleman or by the explanatory memorandum, of this new phrase "net rent." Why impose such a responsibility upon the local advisory committees? Let us assume that an old age pensioner and his wife occupied a fairly substantial house. It might have been the home in which they had brought up a large family, the family has scattered, and the house may now appear to be perhaps more substantial than the old folk should live in. I do not know why that point of view should be taken, but it is suggested by implication that it should be taken into consideration. There is hardly a town, village or hamlet that has not got a serious housing problem. How can an advisory committee fix this so-called average rent? May I illustrate from my own area what is the position in most districts of the country. It happens to be a comparatively old industrial community. Hundreds of my constituents live in houses built 100, 120 and 140 years ago. We have been able to bring into being some far happier housing schemes than were built in the hurly-burly days of the Industrial Revolution. The differences in rent, of course, are substantial. Housing schemes have been built under different Acts of Parliament at different periods, with the result that rents of comparable houses in size and amentities differ substantially.
The only justification the Government has evolved to explain this new anomaly is that a landlord may impose an excessive rent upon an old age pensioner because it might be met out of public funds. There is, however, another way of dealing with such cases. I would tell my friends of the Conservative Party that in most of the areas where Labour is represented in this House landlords are very chary as to how they abuse their tenants. I should have expected my Conservative friends to be a little more alarmed by this stupid anomaly. Why not agree that, whatever the scale, the rent allowance to be paid should be the actual amount paid by the old age pensioner? Let me give another illustration of a town that may be urban to-day with a substantial population, but which at onetime was a rural town. Wt know the differences in housing in such a town. An old house that has existed through generations may still be going for


a comparatively low rent, but the improved modern house will have a substantially higher rent. I must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter. It will mean additional work, it will present a problem to local advisory committees which they will never be able to answer satisfactorily even to themselves. The advisory committee in my own constituency have tried to do a good job notwithstanding the shoals of anomalies they have encountered.
Let me refer to the scales. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that the improvements in these new Regulations are, if I may be permitted to use the expression, "Nothing to shout about." I cannot get into an ecstasy about them. An unemployed man and wife get 31s. a week, plus, of course, the rent. There is no hon. Member who will dare tell his constituents, particularly if he has an unemployed problem, that 31s. is enough for a husband and wife. I regard the attitude of the Government as still very petty and very mean. An unemployed applicant living alone, or who may be a householder, gets 18s. a week. How in all conscience can that be justified? Who can live on it without having his spirit broken and without having a deep sense of bitter humiliation? Human beings cannot live on 18s. a week, and it is no use pretending that the Government are attempting to mete out some little measure of justice or have any sense of proportion when these figures are put forward. Men cannot live on 18s. a week. Not all the rhetoric, wrapped up in all the sympathetic language that may come from the Treasury Bench, can persuade anybody that the Government are trying to do justice to these people.
The problem may be accentuated at the end of the war. I am prepared to accept the assumption of the hon. Member for Gorbals that this will be the scale operating then, judging by the colossal ineptitude of the Government in preparing for post-war conditions, and it may apply possibly to hundreds of thousands of men and women. It is no use our pretending that we can go to our constituents and say that the Government even yet have come to the conclusion that a small measure of justice shall be done to these people. For any other

applicant over 21 years of age the scale gives the colossal sum of 15s. 6d. Frankly, that is adding another insult to the injury which has been felt for some years by thousands of people. The Government must accept it that no human being can keep himself in any measure of decency, retaining any pride in himself or any healthy pride in his country, upon 15s. 6d. a week, even though there is a Coalition Government saying to him, "In some mysterious way you can and must live upon it."
My criticism applies with almost equal strength to the old age pensioners. Many of them are sick or ailing. They require not only greater care but all kinds of nourishment that cannot be bought easily at the prices of ordinary food today. If the right hon. Gentleman who has started on his job to-day will accept it from me, I feel that he wanted to win the approval and good will of the House, but he will pardon me if I paraphrase what my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals said of him in his absence, "We shall watch his work very closely and be helpfully critical as he goes along." He is in a great Department, with great potentialities for good or for ill, and if the right hon. Gentleman shows any sign that he is working along the lines of adding to the quantum of good there will be no captious criticism from this side of the House, but he will get all the encouragement which he will deserve and possibly need.
My last word is this: We are told that these improvements will cost about £7,250,000, to be applied to nearly 1,500,000 old age pensioners. I have tried to work it out by simple arithmetic, and leaning generously, towards the Government by giving them the benefit of any decimal points that may come in—

Mr. Silverman: A large part of the extra £7,250,000 is taken up in bringing women up to the standard of the men and a large further part is taken up in abolishing the distinction between urban and rural areas.

Mr. Davies: I am taking all that into consideration. I want to do justice. I have not "talked down" these small improvements, what I have described as "pointers in the right direction." I am prepared to assume that the £7,250,000 will be distributed among nearly


1,500,000 old age pensioners, and if my arithmetic is correct that will amount to 1s. 10d. per week per old age pensioner. That is not much for anybody to get into a frenzy of joy about. All I would say in conclusion is, let us hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take his courage in both his hands, will watch how these new Regulations work, and take steps at an early date to correct their shortcomings and to make further improvements along the lines foreshadowed in this draft Order.

Mr. Maxton: I can remember some 30 or 40 years ago, when the party above the Gangway was in its pioneering days, that a well known Socialist agitator used to come up to Scotland from London and delight us by his way of speaking and his somewhat different method of approach. He used to deliver a speech pointing out that the House of Commons was composed of Liberals and Conservatives but that there really was no difference between the two, because they really stood for exactly the same thing. He would say, "It is my firm belief, fellow workers, that Mr. H. H. Asquith takes A. J. Balfour behind the Speaker's Chair and says 'Look here, Arthur, what are you and I going to do so as to dish the working class?'" That was more than 30 years ago and we have moved a bit since then. The party above the Gangway have reached a high position of influence and power in the land, and it is no longer necessary for meetings to take place behind the Speaker's Chair. They take place in the Cabinet.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The hon. Member and I meet in the smoke room.

Mr. Maxton: I do not know that there has been any advantage to me. I have seen the days when it was one of the courtesies of the House that a well paid Minister sometimes offered hospitality, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my experience with him so far has been very far from that. As I was saying, we have moved a bit since those earlier days, and we do not consider ways and means of "dishing" the working class, but this is what takes place. A very considerable agitation arises in the country for an addition to old age pensions. The old age pensioners form a very substantial organisation,

a well organised movement, and they attract public attention and public sympathy and the Government say "This is a social evil that cannot be ignored." I am not denying that the Government have a human interest in it but Cabinet Ministers can always keep their human interest underneath until there is a substantial public agitation that compels them to allow some measure of scope to it and then they say "Something will have to be done for the old age pensioners. They are asking for 30s. Well, we cannot give them that, because it is very bad for the workers to get it into their heads that they can get what they ask for." The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour knows that in connection with trade unions. I have not his trade union experience, but I have learned a little in the West of Scotland.
I can remember unskilled labourers getting 18s. a week. After an agitation that went well we got them screwed up to the point of asking for £1. Finally the bosses had to take notice of the agitation. They said, "The case is made out for an improvement in conditions, but to raise their pay from 18s. to £1 in one jump—impossible! We are willing to meet them to some extent." I wonder how many times the right hon. Gentleman has heard that story in the course of his life? So they offered 18s. 6d. a week. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that that is precisely the approach that is being made to these changes in old age pensions. Did he ever think that in the course of his active life in the Labour movement he would come to the same petty-minded outlook as the capitalists whom he has spent his life in fighting? Dishing out 6d.!
I come to the over-riding consideration of all—that there is a war on. My attitude on the war is very well known, but this is not the time or the place to go into that. This "exigencies of the war" business is being overworked a little in social matters. A whole lot of things, as any intelligent person knows, are influenced by war conditions, but this is not one of them.
These are adroit proposals. There are some wonderful fellows in the Civil Service. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says to one of them, "Spend £7,000,000. Spread it over the shop window to make it look as attractive as possible. Give us a scheme that will please the women and do


something for the kiddies, and make everybody feel a little bit better off than they were before." The scheme comes back from that adroit and clever-minded civil servant, who is quite as capable of producing a good and generous scheme, if the instructions were handed to him, as of producing a miserable scheme; but he must do what he is told. This adroit scheme means that a man like myself does not feel that he can vote against it. I presented a Petition some weeks ago on behalf of the old people throughout the country, but I feel that I am being cheated and they are being cheated and that the House of Commons is getting something other than the sentiments and the reason of the House of Commons believe to be right and possible in the circumstances. I cannot see why the 30s. of the Old Folks' Association could not have been granted or why we could not have got rid of the odious means test.
I do not see why there need be any means test but the Income Tax return. The objection to the means test always was that it is a special and invidious investigation applied to the poorer section of the community only. Income Tax has now come down to very low income levels, and the one investigation, and I do not care how strict it is, should be conducted into the incomes of everyone, from the millionaire to the pauper. When you had got the income levels of the population clearly in front of you, you could say at a certain point, "There is the line, and anybody below that line has an insufficient income. It is the duty of the State to see that their income is brought up to that level." The demand of the old age pensioners was a most modest one, and to give anything else is to be unfair. It leaves the Government in the position that they have satisfied nobody and have not removed the agitational possibilities, and within a comparatively short time this House will have to be troubled again to look at some other minor adjustments of the matter.
I do not want to go into the minutiae of the matter, but I want to deal with a minor point involved in the rent allowance. I remember that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was answered by an hon. Member who said that people were living in houses too expensive for them and the State had a right to suggest that they should clear out.

Coming from a Conservative Member, that is almost an atrocity. Imagine a couple living in a four or five-apartment house where they have brought up their family, who, one by one, have gone to set up their own families or who have perhaps gone away on war service. The old couple of pensioners are living in a house obviously too big for them, but it is the place where their married life has taken place and round which all their memories centre. The hon. Member suggests that necessities of this kind and that which is of the very essence of life should be thrown aside, by some advisory committee. I hope that the rent provisions will not be interpreted in such a way as to make it possible for old folks in circumstances such as I have described to be turned out of their homes, to find "fresh woods and pastures new" in their declining years. In the whole of my life I have never opposed a proposal which handed out a shilling or a sixpence to a poor section of the community, so I will let this go, without feeling any satisfaction about it whatever.

Mr. Ness Edwards: First of all I want to congratulate the new Minister of Health upon his exceptionally clear exposition in his maiden effort, and also to congratulate him upon his courtesy. I do so on behalf of myself and other colleagues on these benches. It is my view that in discussions on these questions we often have not taken credit for some of the advances that have been achieved in this institution. I have been interested in this matter ever since I came here, and one cannot be blind to the fact that substantial progress in dealing with it has been made during the war. The principle of the supplementary pension has been established, the means test has been substantially trimmed away, the standard of life of aged people has been raised all over the country, and a vast number of them have been taken away from public assistance institutions. That is something of which we need not be ashamed. Also, £44,000,000 is now paid per year to the old age pensioners which was not paid before, and by this set of Regulations it is proposed to give them another £7,250,000.
It is interesting to remember that in August, 1940, the supplementary pension in England and Wales was 8s. 9d. In Scotland, at the same date, it was 8s. 8d. In August, 1941, the average supplemen-


tary pension in England and Wales was 9s. 6d. and in Scotland 8s. 10d. In August, 1942, the supplementary pension in England and Wales was 11s. 2d. and in Scotland 10s. 5d. In August, 1943, in England and Wales the supplementary pension was 12s. 9d., and in Scotland it was 12s. First, I would draw attention to the fact that there has been an increase from 8s. 9d. in 1940 to 12s. 9d. in 1943, in England and Wales, for which this House is entitled to credit. As to the comparison between Scotland and England, I know it may be suggested that the difference is due to the standard of rents, and to the reasonable rent figures, but I have had an answer to-day to a Question put to the Minister of Health showing that the reasonable rent in two outstanding places in Scotland is 8s. and in a similar number of outstanding places in England also 8s. Judging by this information, the reasonable rent figure is not the explanation for the lower rate of supplementary pension in Scotland as compared with the rate in England. I am not dealing with it on grounds of nationality; I am concerned about a set of Regulations which, I think, should be applied equitably all over the country, and I am trying to show there is a differentiation. I want to ask my hon. Friends who represent Scotland whether or not the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland is as efficient in watching the administration of supplementary pensions as is the Ministry of Health in England. I do not think so. So far I can find no other explanation for the difference in the rate as between Scotland and England and Wales.
First of all, I want to indicate what the Regulations do. First, they are passing to the old people an additional sum of £7,250,000. They are abolishing rural discrimination, a matter at which we have hammered away from this side of the House and a matter about which there must be a great deal of pleasure, especially in the mind of one hon. Member who is not here—the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson), who, when he was able to be in this House, always agitated about this question. Then it abolishes, as the Minister has said, the differences between the sexes. There is a shilling advantage there. It abolishes the financial difference between the married woman who has a pension and the married woman who has not.

They are all advantages. [An HON. MEMBER: "But trivial."] I shall describe their quantity when I come to my criticism. I want us to appraise these things. Let us put all the goods in the window, the good ones and the bad ones. The next point is that the winter allowance has been spread over all the year. I do not think we ought to quibble about this. The same amount of money is paid under this method as under the old method. I, like the rest of hon. Members, welcome the simplification of the code. One other point is the increasing of the earning disregard to a flat 10s. a week. That indeed is of considerable advantage to a lot of people who are following some occupation.
Having said all I can say in favour of the Regulations, I now want to come to the criticisms. In the first place, I want to deal with this reasonable rent proposition. What is it that is meant by the Assistance Board? Is it that the average rent is the reasonable rent, because in every council house practically in England and Wales the rent is above the reasonable rent figure? It is no use Members assuming that because they have all sores of assurances from the Assistance Board there will be no hardship that the rent is to be paid even when the rent is reasonable. Let us quote an answer which was given to-day. Here is the Question:
To ask the Minister of Health whether the amount of rent in excess of the reasonable rent figure is allowed in cases in which old age pensioners are in receipt of amounts which are required by statutory provisions for the purpose of calculating scale allowances?
What is the answer?
The Assistance Board's practice in this matter … is to make an allowance for rent in excess of the limit recommended by the local advisory committee in cases where failure to do so would cause hardship by leaving the applicant with insufficient money to meet his other needs.
I hope that is clearly understood. Here is the Assistance Board's reply to-day, that where a pensioner has other resources, even though this House says that these resources must be disregarded, if that pensioner is paying more than the reasonable rent he will not get that rent above the reasonable rent figure given to him in his supplementary pension.

Mr. R. Morgan: Is there not such a thing as the excess profits rent


which prevent landlords charging a rent higher than the rateable value level?

Mr. Edwards: That is an interjection which helps me. Most houses are under the Rent Restrictions Act, therefore rents are fixed, but the reasonable rent figure of the Assistance Board is not the figure that the tenant is bound to pay under the Rent Restrictions Act. The reasonable rent figure of the Assistance Board is an artificial figure very largely fixed as the result of persuasion from the Assistance Board. The decision of the local advisory committees is not final. They are only advisory to the Board, and the Board fixes it. Let me quote a list. The reasonable rent figure in Manchester is 8s., in Wigan 8s., in Stoke 8s., in Leigh 8s., in Wrexham 8s., in London 10s. 6d. to 11s. 6d., Bournemouth 8s., Oxford 8s., Swansea 9s., Bridgend 9s., Dundee 8s., Stirling 8s., and Newport 9s. It is an average rent, it is a rent fixed for the purpose of enabling the Assistance Board to use moneys and resources which this House says shall be ignored in order to refuse supplementary pensions.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, I know, takes a very broad view of this matter. I am sure he does not want to penalise the pensioners who live in decent houses. If he wants to give effect to his desires, he must have it definitely from the Assistance Board that rents permitted by the Rent Restrictions Act shall be paid in every case by the Assistance Board to the claimant. Wherever the rent is the permissible rent under the Rent Restrictions Act, that rent figure ought to be reasonable for the purposes of supplementary pensions. I think he must go further. He must say that when the House of Commons has decided that 5s. friendly society sick pay is to be ignored it must be ignored for all purposes; it must not be taken into account behind the scenes by the Assistance Board in order to prevent giving to a pensioner that amount of rent he ought to have to pay the rent which he is bound to pay. On that point I would ask my right hon. Friend to make sure about it, and perhaps he will see that the Assistance Board's instructions to its officers on this question shall be made available to Members of Parliament. We do not want the Assistance Board to go behind the back of Parliament, to do something in secret that they dare not do in terms of a Regulation

which has to come publicly before this House.
I wish to take one or two other points. There is a distinction between the householder and the non-householder. We come back to it again. It has always been my contention that this distinction is the last vestige of the family means test that remains. Let me put it quite simply. John Jones is married; his wife dies. He remains in his house, and he gets a scale rate of 20s. But if he decides not to remain in his house but to go and live with strangers, he still gets 20s. and a proportion of the rent. But if he decides to go and live with a nephew, he will get 17s. 6d. and a proportion of his rent. But why does he lose 2s. 6d? A man who is lodging with strangers, who is living as a member of the family if you like, will get £1, but the man who lives with relatives, no matter how distant, in precisely the same domestic relationship will get 17s. 6d. The Minister of Health said that when people live together there is a saving. Is that not true of a lodger? If a lodger lives in a house with two other people, surely the expenditure of that house is the same as a father, son and daughter living in the same house. Of course it is not cheaper because he is a relative. There is no justification at all for this distinction in these two categories.
My right hon. Friend wishes to abolish the inquiries. He wishes to abolish the investigations. Everything he has done has been done with the object of limiting the inquiries. Here is the chief factor, the chief cause of the major number of inquiries made under the Assistance Board. What is the reward if the Assistance Board officer is successful in establishing that a man is not a householder? There is 2s. 6d. saved on it, and there is a financial saving to arrive at the conclusion that the man really is not a householder but is living as a member of the family. At the same time the Assistance Board says that he cannot be living with them as a member of the family unless he is related to them. There is no sense in this. We ask the Minister of Labour to use his great influence in this matter and get rid of this cause of unnecessary investigation.
I wish to make one or two other points. What does this increase amount to? It has been put that per case it amounts to 2s. 2d. per week. Per pensioner, the


average weekly amount of increase is 1s. 10d. Let us break it up. A person living alone who was having a winter allowance has an increase over the year of 1s. 9d. per week. If he was not having a winter allowance, he will have 3s. a week increase over the year. Married couples, both pensioners, will get an increase of 1s. 4½d. each per week over the year. A married couple, with the wife not a pensioner, will get an increase of 1s. 10½d. each per week over the year. The pensioner living with relatives will get 1s. 6d., but the pensioner not living with relatives 3s.—the distinction between the householder and the non-householder coming in again, to rob the old age pensioner who has lost his wife or rob the widow old age pensioner because they have gone to live with relatives. Then I come to the case of the widow with one child aged five. There would be 3d. per week reduction over the year. I agree that 3d, per week reduction over the year in the case of a widow with a child aged five will not operate in the case of those widows now on the books, but the new widows, the ones who come on to supplementary pensions in future, will have a reduction of 3d. per week over the year compared with those now on. A widow with two children aged 5 and 7 will get 6d. a week reduction over the year, and a widow with two children aged 13 to 11 will have 5s. 3d. increase per week over the whole year.
I view this with some apprehension, because I regard this set of Regulations as one part of the Government's post-war plan for dealing with that segment of the community who cannot be covered under a comprehensive insurance scheme. To my mind, that causes the gravest apprehension. Here is a part of the Government's post-war plan, here is its standard, here is its test of human values and human needs, here is the standard of living to be laid down for some years to come, both during the war and the post-war period. This House will have to insist on the right to discuss the whole of this position when we come to discuss the comprehensive scheme. This standard is not adequate to meet the needs of the old people. Take the straight case of a single pensioner. He is given in pension and supplementary pension, less than enough to pay for his board and lodging.

Board and lodging cannot be obtained anywhere at under 25s. a week—I do not know where you can get it under 30s. The old age pensioner is allowed 22s. 6d., and, in the places where the rent is highest, 27s. I submit to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that that is not going to be a satisfactory example of the new world for which the boys are fighting. That is not a scheme on which you can get unity, in this House or outside. The co-operation for which we have had all these requests cannot be built on a standard rate of supplementation which is inadequate to meet the normal needs of our people. While I cannot vote against these Regulations, while I have to recognise that they contain certain advantages, while we are going along the same road, and have come a long way, I ask my right hon. Friend to increase the pace, and to put into this job a far greater measure of generosity and justice than has been shown so far.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: With the latter part of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), most of us will agree. The scales provided here are, from what he calls the human point of view, much less than any of us would desire. I hope that when the post-war period comes and we have a Beveridge scheme, or some other scheme, a scale of payments much better will be provided. I would say a word or two about the Papers we are now considering. I agree with most speakers to-day in welcoming this improved method of presentation of difficult Regulations. Like other Members, I have often found it necessary to meet groups of old age pensioners. It has been exceedingly difficult to explain what it all meant. Here we have something short, succinct, plain. If the Home Secretary could only have reduced his Fire Guard Regulations into some comparable scope, he would have been a very great man. As it is, I notice that, despite the tens of thousands of words in the document for England, he had to add several thousands more for Scotland. So far as this deals with a number of anomalies, it is well worth having. But it deals with supplementary pensions. I suggest that it is not so much the amount paid to old age pensioners that worries them, as the character of the payment. Frankly, the demand of the old


age pensioners is not so much for a greater total pension, including supplementary pension, as for a substantial increase in the basic pension.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out that that is not in Order.

Mr. Stewart: I imagined that it would not be, and I do not propose to pursue it. But I think it would be in Order for me to point out the weakness of the present scheme. Under the supplementary scheme, the objection of all decent people, old and young, is this. The more hard-working they have been throughout their lives, the more thrifty they have been, the more they are penalised. An old man wrote to me from Dundee the day before yesterday. He had been in the printing trade for 47 years. He had been a member of the union during all that period, and had been contributing a substantial amount weekly for his old age. He retired, and he draws a sum—I do not recollect the figure, but it is a substantial number of shillings—per week. Because of that, he does not get so much in supplemenary pension as some comparatively lazy fellow who never saved. Hon. Members opposite look at this from the point of view of their own political philosophy; let me put it in the form of my own political philosophy. I believe in profit, I believe in private enterprise, and, because I believe in these things, I believe in thrift. I believe that by this method of paying supplementary pensions you are largely destroying thrift. That will undermine the stability of the country, and I do not like it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is going on to the general question again, and that is out of Order.

Mr. Stewart: I have made my point. That is my own point of view, and it is very fortunate that it leads me to a position which coincides with the position of hon. Members opposite. These Regulations fall far short of the ideal, and we shall not be content with anything short of a substantial increase in the basic pension itself, free from any supplementation at all.

Major Procter: Most of us who have been considering the future of our country are very much concerned with the problem of the aged people. It would appear that this country soon will

have a far larger proportion of aged people than it has had in any period of our history. I welcome this Measure, because it is a milestone on the way to that social security that we all desire. But there are several things which disturb me very much. One of them—which I am pleased to say has been answered by these Regulations—is the fact that the Beveridge Report left entirely out of the picture the old age pensioner who was now living.

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing the Beveridge Report; we are discussing these Regulations.

Major Procter: I realise that. I was just mentioning in passing that this Measure helps to remove what I regard as a great social injustice against the present day recipients of old age pensions, and that is one of the reasons why I welcome the Regulations. I was very much struck by the words of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). He always expresses in fine, idealist language the ideas in his mind. When he was speaking the question came to me whether the ideas which he set out—which pass far beyond what is proposed here, namely, to increase the old age pension to 30s. a week, without a needs test—were practical politics. It is characteristic of the hon. Gentleman to make the idealistic seem practicable, but there is a warning in the fate of the Petition which he himself presented. Although it was put solely into his keeping, it was found to be no good at all for practical purposes, because it was out of Order and could not get past the Committee. Similarly, the set-up which he visualises, under which each man and woman would be paid 30s. a week—which every one of us would like to do—is impracticable, unless there is a needs test.

Mr. Silverman: They do it in New Zealand.

Major Procter: Yes, but not without a means test, and even then it nearly brought New Zealand to bankruptcy. New Zealand was saved only by the war from the errors of its politicians.

Mr. Silverman: New Zealand is still paying it. I have never heard that New Zealand was in danger of going bankrupt, or that she had failed to make a very magnificent contribution for the prosecution of the war.

Mr. Graham White: Since the subject of the means test has been mentioned, was there not in fact a very stringent needs test in New Zealand? Would my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour confirm that?

Major Procter: That is what I was coming to. When we speak of practicability, I refer to this country. I can envisage a state of affairs, in which 30s. a week, or even £3 a week, would not be enough, especially if we had inflation, accompanied by prices rising in an ever upward vicious spiral.

Mr. Speaker: Really, I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to keep to the Regulations.

Major Procter: If we are to help our old age pensioners now we must therefore limit ourselves to what can be done in the near future. I wish it were possible to abolish the means test, as has been suggested. But again this question of practical politics comes in. I have a case in my own constituency, and I would like hon. Members opposite to give me the answer, because, in all sincerity, I do not know it. There is a lady of 73, who had saved £1,300. She wanted to know why she could not get the supplementary pension, and she wrote to me about it. If she lived another 10 years and utilised £100 a year, she would have approximately £2 a week, plus the 10s. basic pension, which would supply all her wants. But if you had no needs test and paid her 30s. per week or £3 per man and wife, which is what is demanded, what would be the result? That woman would actually be worse off because if she did not spend her savings she would receive only the 30s. a week, whereas if she used her own money for her own benefit she would have £2 10s.

Mr. Silverman: Does not the hon. and gallant Member realise that if the lady to whom he refers had been a civil servant or a school teacher, she could have saved anything she liked and still get her pension in addition?

Major Procter: I am fully aware of that and the answer must be obvious. The school teacher's pension is deferred salary.

Mr. Silverman: So is the other.

Major Procter: The supplementary pension comes out of the taxpayers' money and out of public funds. It is an addition to the basic rate which comes to the pensioner by right.

Mr. Silverman: Where does the other come from?

Major Procter: As I have said, this lady in the one instance would receive approximately £2 10s. a week, and in the other case she would receive only 30s. a week. Here is a problem which I put to the hon. Member opposite. If you abolished the means test and gave supplementary pensions to everybody whether they needed them or not, what would be the practical result? You would not be benefiting the person who had saved money. You would only enable her to pass that £1,300 on to her heirs; you would be subsidising, out of public funds, her grandchildren, and you would not be doing her any good.

Mr. Silverman: Is not that what people save for?

Major Procter: I do not intend to be led away by interruptions into a side track. I come to the third point. We would all like to see the basic rate raised and supplementary pensions put as high as possible. Let us be thankful for what has been done in these Regulations and go forward within the capacity of the country to pay. Do not forget that the former source of taxation, that is, the rich people, has almost disappeared. The total amount remaining in the pockets of the Super-tax payer is only £30,000,000 per year, and therefore it would mean that the £500,000,000 per annum, which old age pensions of 30s. per week without a means test would cost, would have to be raised in other ways. The result would be that the working men and women taxpayers would have to pay another 3s. or 4s. in the pound in Income Tax. In my opinion to ask the working men and women to pay 13s. in the £ Income Tax is to place too great a burden upon them, even for such a great and beneficent cause as that of improving the standard of life of our old people whom we all wish to help. I suggest that it would be a great help if hon. Members opposite, instead of putting forward merely their wishes, would also put forward practical methods whereby these


schemes could be carried out, without placing too heavy a burden upon working people many of whom can ill afford to pay the existing high taxes.

Mr. Graham White: I do not wish to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Accrington (Major Procter) in dealing with the means test or indeed with any of the other figures involved in this Motion, because I understand that this is not the occasion to go into all these matters, even if we were minded to do so. We here are simply carrying out what has been the traditional practice in this country since about 1907, in connection with these Regulations. We are carrying out a policy of social security on the instalment plan. We have, from time to time, in response to political agitation or to some suddenly-felt need, introduced, either by legislation or by Regulation, something which has ameliorated the condition of some section of the community at the cost of adding to anomalies and disabilities already existing in the benefits given to other people. The difference between that traditional process of working on the instalment plan and creating fresh anomalies by everything we do, and what is before us to-day, is that the machinery has been put into reverse, and we are now, by Motions such as this, endeavouring to remove anomalies which have been created over the last 20 or 25 years. Therefore I and my hon. Friends accept these Regulations just for what they are. They bring benefit to some people, they do harm to none, and therefore the House of Commons will, I imagine, accept them. It is true that our ambitions in connection with matters of this kind have been encouraged by the discussions which have taken place recently and that we are beginning to get a little bit impatient, because we want to see not social security on the instalment plan, but a comprehensive plan. It is in anticipation of such a comprehensive plan that we accept this instalment plan, which will create no serious fresh anomalies but may remove some of those which, in accordance with our constant practice in this country, we have been creating by our efforts in the past.

Mr. McLean Watson: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for remarks made by some of the previous speakers. My hon. Friend the

Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who has left his place, said that to-day we were saying our last word on old age pensions for a considerable time. Then my hon. Friend the member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), who has also left his place, said that the next time we would be dealing with this question would be after the war. He also referred to post-war plans. I hope the Minister is not going to tell us that nothing more will be done about old age pensions until after the war. We understood that a White Paper on old age pensions was coming along and that failing old age pensions we would get the alternative to the Beveridge plan. But if my hon. Friends are correct, there is nothing but a sad disappointment awaiting the old age pensioners. I understood that to-day we were passing Regulations meant to simplify and codify the Regulations already passed, which were difficult to understand. But I hope that we are not disposing of this question finally or even for a year or two ahead. It is true that this matter has been before the House almost continuously since 1940. That has been because the Government have never faced the question properly. Instead of dealing with this supplementary pensions system as they have done, the Government ought to have laid a comprehensive scheme before the House and passed it, and then we would not have this question recurring continuously. But no sooner was the last Act passed than we had a Petition signed by millions of people asking for a reconsideration of the old age pensions problem.
I have not the time to deal with many of the Regulations on which I would like to touch, but I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), who also has left his place, that I do not know any reason for the differentiation between the rates in England and Wales and the rates in Scotland unless it is the rent factor. I believe it is generally understood that rents are lower in Scotland than in England. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have always understood so, and I must leave the matter there if hon. Members disagree with me. I was certainly under the impression that the rent factor was the main factor in the difference between the rates paid in supplementary allowances in England and Wales and those paid in Scotland, and until other facts are produced, I am prepared to believe that.
There is just one other point that I would put to the Minister. It was touched on by the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke), who is, I am glad to see, in his place. He referred to the need for dealing with disregards. I hope this question will be considered by the Government. I dare say that there cannot be any change in these Regulations; we have either to accept them or reject them and we are not prepared to reject them. But I assure the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour that there is deep feeling among old age pensioners at the difference which applies in the treatment of savings and in certain disregards concerning savings. You cannot get an old age pensioner to understand why, in one case, £375 is ignored in the assessment of the supplementary pension, whereas a man who has only £50 has 6d. a week deducted from his supplementary pension.
I hope this will be dealt with on a future occasion when we have the Government's great and comprehensive scheme of old age pensions, and I hope we shall not have to wait for the Government's new plan until the war is over. We can quote the Minister of Labour as indicating that we need not necessarily wait until the war is over before the alternative to the Beveridge plan can be produced. Nobody can say when the war will end. It May not be for another couple of years, and we cannot wait for another couple of years before dealing with this question. I hope that when we deal with this matter again, we shall get rid of all anomalies and produce an old age pension scheme which will be accepted by the people as a final settlement of the problem. This is merely a temporary expedient to tidy up what has been done in the past. It is not an attempt to deal with the great problem of old age pensions as we understood it was to be dealt with by the Government.

Mr. Sloan: I am distrustful of the Regulations that are to be passed to-day. My hon. Friend who opened the discussion said that he welcomed them as a step in the right direction. I remember, when I was a boy, that we used to buy pit boots tied together with string, and I think that my hon. Friend must have had on his pit boots and that the step forward of which he

was speaking was just the length of the string with which the boots were tied together. There is no step forward. To say that 1s. 10d. a week on an average is a step in the right direction is really an insult to the old people. We have been told that wonderful progress has been made on the question of old age pensions during the war. That wonderful progress can be measured by the few shillings that have been granted, but viewed in the light of the demands of trade unionists who have had pounds upon pounds a week increases because of the increased cost of living, we can easily understand that any advantage that has been given to these old people has been scaled off rapidly at the other end. An hon. Friend mentioned the other day that more than the whole of the increase that had been given to old age pensioners had been swallowed up in the increased prices of the few commodities that they use and that, therefore, they were really worse off.
While there is a differentiation between Scotland and England, it is not worth our while kicking up a row about it. The difference amounts to 11d. a week, and we are not prepared to make a disturbance over 11d. a week. I do not believe that rents are lower in Scotland than in England. You cannot build houses cheaper in Scotland than in England; in fact, they are more expensive. The local authorities discovered that fact when they started to build houses, and both rents and rates are higher in Scotland, but if you take the average of the rotten old houses still in existence, perhaps in the ultimate you might build up a case of that kind. I do not want to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from replying to the discussion, but only to say that I am not satisfied. I am firmly disappointed that this is the best that the right hon. Gentleman can produce for us.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): It would almost disappoint me if my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) was satisfied I do not believe during all the years I have known him I have ever heard him express satisfaction with anything. If one day he should break out and say, "I am satisfied," I would not believe my own ears. Therefore, I can appreciate his attitude towards these Regulations. An increase to old age pensioners was granted


some little time ago, and the widows were transferred to the Assistance Board away from the Poor Law. We did not get any credit for that, but I can assure hon. Members that one of the best things we have done is to take people away from the historic Poor Law and put them under the different methods of treatment.

Mr. Sloan: I agree with my right hon. Friend now.

Mr. Bevin: When hon. Members talk about an increase to meet the needs of old age pensioners and about increases of wages, I beg of them to draw the right distinction. To an old age pensioner it is 1s. 10½d. per person, but if a workman gets 5s. a week, it may be for a whole family and not one person. They have not had pounds per week increase since the war. The average increase in wage rates as distinct from earnings since the war, I would say, in reply to my hon. Friend, is just over a guinea a week, and that has to cover a family in most cases and not an individual. There has been appreciation of the levelling up of the rural rates. When I took office in 1940 I was asked to put the Restriction of Engagements Order on to the agricultural workers of the country to prevent them leaving their job. I asked, What are the wages before I do it? What were the wages? The wages were on the average 33s. throughout the country. At least the Government now are coming along and are saying to the old couples in the country, "35s. for a man and wife plus rent, which is 2s. higher than the total wage of the agricultural workers, including rent, when we took office in 1940." I think that at least the Government are entitled to some credit for the step they have taken in this direction. I am not saying that the wages were right.

Mr. Bowles: They were disgraceful.

Mr. Bevin: That was so, but the agricultural wages have also gone up, and I cannot enter into the points raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) as to the subsequent decisions, which I agree with him must inevitably follow in the development of equality between town and country. But as one who was born in the country and knew what country life was, nothing gives me greater joy than to see the independence

of the old people in the villages as a result of these pensions. The main discussion has turned on the question of rent. The old age pensioners presented a Petition asking for 30s. a week in London, and, remember, that included rent. In London these new Regulations will in many cases give the person living alone more than the 30s. which was asked for in that Petition, and in most parts of the country it will be almost equal to the demand made in the Petition. The amount left for food and clothing is almost comparable with what the old age pensioners demanded, especially when you take account of the disregards. Some people have said that in the disregards we are penalising thrift. The recent Act upon which these Regulations are based can surely be said to have removed any attack on thrift. There is a disregard of 10s. 6d. for superannuation and certain other figures for sick pay and the rest, while in the case of savings we have allowed up to £400 instead of £300 and 6d. instead of 1s. deduction. I cannot accept the position that the State is expected to subsidise the second generation.
I do not think that is fair. This is not a question of money. I do not count these pensions or approach them in terms of money at all. What I have to ask myself is what they cost in terms of man-power, for every cost that you put on has to be translated into terms of goods and services. I have not worked it out in terms of hours of work, but if you get 16,000,000 people the total value of whose output is so much, you must take from that the cost of what is given to the non-producer. There is so much on which he has to live in terms of clothing, accommodation and services. That is what it amounts to. You must balance the claim of the non-producer against the standard of living of the man who is producing, because it is from him that the cost has to come. If there is only £100 to play with and someone takes too much of it, it must be at the expense of the workman who produced it. Nothing exists except through the producer; that is where wealth comes from. When he produces his £100 you proceed to divide it up, and you have to say how much goes to one category of people in goods and services and how much to another. That is exactly what happens. [Interruption.] It is very nice to jibe at one another, but the public


ought to appreciate what this means. The House is entering upon a discussion which will arise in a far more acute form in a few months' time.

Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman assuming that the old people are not going to be kept? Is not the real question whether the individual old age pensioner is kept by his relatives out of what they get or whether the burden is spread over the whole community?

Mr. Bevin: I am assuming that it is going to be spread over the whole production, whichever way he is kept, because the time has come when the standard of living has to be looked upon as a whole and not merely segregated into different categories. The Government are faced with the problem of looking into the job as a whole, and we must have regard to this. So that I say to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) that I claim that in these Regulations we have very nearly met the position by the rent allowances and by the amount of money—perhaps not quite met it in certain cases, but on the amount that is left after rent is paid in relation to what the old age pensioners themselves have in mind we have virtually met it.
Now I come to the question of rent. It is well known that the Government cannot undertake to pay any rent paid by a person under any conditions. It would lead to the most grave abuse. Quite recently the Secretary of State for Scotland had to bring in a Bill to try to regulate the cost of rooms because of the grave abuses that are going on. You cannot in those circumstances say you will pay any rent that anyone has decided to charge to a pensioner. There is no intention in this proposal of altering the present practice of meeting the rent. But the State is entitled to have advice as to whether that rent comes within a reasonable distance of properly accredited rents in that area. That is not an unreasonable practice, and that is what we have been doing for some time. I have no fear about the rent rule at all. I am glad that arrangements are being made to keep rent separate because I am convinced that the day is not far distant when the whole question of the accommodation of our older people will have to be dealt with on a different footing from terms of money.

If we are to do that, we shall have to separate the cost of habitation from other costs. I regard this as establishing a principle in connection with habitation which may lead us a very long way in dealing with the whole problem. I should have thought hon. Members would welcome that.

Mr. S. O. Davies: We have welcomed the principle of rent.

Mr. Bevin: I am glad to know that, but welcome takes such different forms.
The hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) raised the point with regard to the question of disregard as between superannuation from a firm when the recipient dies and the firm continues a payment to the widow. The Act expressly says superannuation, and if it is not superannuation it comes into the category of "other disregards," and it is totalled up as a rule to about 7s. 6d. You cannot very well distinguish between one sort of income, say, from a society or a charity, and from the employer, and, therefore, as you have to have some definition, the definition that was put into the Act was, as I understand it, superannuation. On that basis it is being administered at the present moment.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: In the case where the recipient dies and the firm passes on an equal amount to the widow, would that be treated as a gift and disregarded?

Mr. Bevin: Yes. It does not come within the term "superannuation." It may be right or wrong, but when the last Act was introduced the question of superannuation was decided, and 7s. 6d. was raised to 10s. 6d., and the term "superannuation" was used. That is the difficulty. The other point is that if it is not superannuation, it might be stopped by the employer at any time. It might be a gift, but it has been classed hitherto in the manner I have indicated.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting, is he, that a regular gift of so much a week is disregarded?

Mr. Bevin: No, but a proportion of it is. It comes into the category of other gifts. There are certain amounts allowed where these gifts come in and are not strictly taken into account.

Mr. Brooke: May we get this perfectly straight? If a pension is paid from an employees' benefit fund to a retired workman, 10s. 6d. is disregarded. It ranks as a superannuation allowance in terms of the 1940 Act. The man dies, and under a standing arrangement which the company has with all its employees a pension continues to be paid to his widow. The Board then regards that, not as a superannuation payment but as a charitable gift, and disregards only 7s. 6d. They have discretion to disregard what they like, for the treatment of charitable gifts is not fixed by law. It seems to me more reasonable that these two cases should be treated alike, because in origin they appear to be alike to everybody concerned.

Mr. Bevin: I would submit to my hon. Friend that superannuation is an obligation of a trust fund to a person that cannot be avoided. A charitable gift is a gift, probably from a pension fund that can be stopped at any moment and the liability thrown back on to the Assistance Board. Therefore, it seems to me that the rules of the fund itself need changing, and if the widow is to be entitled to a payment from the fund as superannuation, it is open to the firm to make it as a superannuation payment which the fund is under an obligation to pay. The rules of the fund need to be cleared up or the administration of the fund may be placed in a difficulty in this respect. I do not think that an officer of the Board should be left in the difficulty of having to decide whether or not the payment to a widow is superannuation or a gift. The rules of the fund itself should make clear whether it is or is not superannuation. If it is, the answer is clear. If it is not, it is an ex gratia gift and must be treated as a charity. I would ask my hon. Friend, if he is connected with any of these funds, to ask the Committee, for the sake of the members of the fund, to put the matter legally right in the rules.

Major Procter: How can it be called superannuation when the man dies? Superannuation exists only as long as the holder is alive.

Mr. Bevin: Oh, no. In my own society the widows of all our officers are entitled by right to half the pension that the husband got while he was alive. It is a good thing to provide for women in superannuation funds and I am glad to say

the practice is growing. I hope it will continue to grow, for the woman often gets the worst end of the stick when her husband dies. Hon. Members have asked me for many more interpretations of points. I would only like to make this observation to the hon. Member for Gorbals. It is a difficult thing for a Minister to know when he is right. Perhaps that is why he is a Minister. You accuse us to-day of being so unkind as not to produce clothing and all the rest of it, but really I cannot forget the last Debate. The Board at that time to their credit got hold of over 130,000 blankets and they distributed them to old age pensioners. What happened? I was denounced by one of my hon. Friends afterwards for walking round with blankets instead of money. A lot of other people would be glad to give up money for blankets if they could. You change your tune from one meeting to another—

Mr. Buchanan: rose—

Mr. Bevin: I do not mean the hon. Member.

Mr. Buchanan: But the right hon. Gentleman has changed his tune once or twice himself; he would not have been a great leader if he had not.

Mr. Bevin: But I like to have the advantage of waiting long enough for the old tune to die away before I sing another tune. The trouble in this matter is that you do not give us a chance even to forget the old tune.
I welcomed the reception that has been given to these Regulations to-day because in 1940 we were faced with the household means test, and there was a lot of irritation about it. I do wish that hon. Members would drop that term for ever because the Act under which we are working now is a needs test, a regulated needs test. I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that there has been a great change. The investigations that have now been imported into this as compared with the old household means test are more in conformity with the Income Tax than anything else that has been done. Of course, I cannot hope to compete with the hon. Member in the method and the way in which he would run the Government or the Cabinet. I was illuminated by the revelation of how


his mind was working, and I got to understand from his speech to-day why he saddled MacDonald upon us in those old days—

Mr. Maxton: Being friends, is that fair?

Mr. Bevin: —because I can see how he wanted the country to be run by that marvellous description of what we are supposed to do inside the Government today. I want to express my appreciation of the way hon. Members have received the introduction of the Regulations by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in his new post. I am satisfied that when they have been worked out and administered fairly we shall have got over the first real difficult stile so far as our old people are concerned.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the point about making the instructions issued by the Assistance Board available in the Library?

Mr. Bevin: How can I do that? The hon. Member has pressed this on more than one occasion. The Government cannot be a party to having all the instructions and Regulations of its Departments being issued in that way. They are issued every day. If we do not interpret the Act aright, the House can challenge us, but the Executive must be responsible for the administration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Supplementary Pensions (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) Regulations, 1943, made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction under Section 38 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, as applied by Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, a copy of which Draft Regulations was presented to this House on 1st December, be approved.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE

Resolved,
That the Draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) Regulations, 1943, made under Sections 38 and 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, a copy of which Draft Regulations was presented to this House on 1st December, be approved."—[Mr. Ernest Bevin.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REBUILDING)

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon plans for the rebuilding of the House of Commons and upon such alterations as may be considered desirable while preserving all its essential features.

Ordered,
That the Committee do consist of Fifteen Members.

Committee accordingly nominated of Commander Agnew, Mr. Benson, Captain De Chair, Mr. Erskine Hill, Sir Patrick Hannon, Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Hore-Belisha, Mr. Godfrey Nicholson, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Miss Rathbone, Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare, Mr. Bracewell Smith, Mr. Wedderburn, Mr. Wilmot and Earl Winterton.

Ordered,
That Five be the quorum.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

OLD AGE PENSIONS (PUBLIC PETITION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. Tinker: Yesterday I gave notice that I would raise this Question on the Adjournment. Fortunately to-day was vacant, and I got my chance, and I am taking advantage of it. In the House yesterday I asked the Prime Minister
if he is aware that a Petition signed by over 4,090,000 electors for increases in the weekly amount to old age pensioners was presented to the House on 2nd November, 1943, by the hon. Member for Bridgeton; that this Petition has not been submitted to the Committee on Public Petitions for them to consider whether such Petition should have a hearing from the Bar of the Chamber; and will he consider making arrangements to have the Standing Orders on Public Petitions examined with a view to renewing the custom of allowing such petitioners to plead their case before the House?


The Deputy Prime Minister did not give a satisfactory answer. He said:
The Petition to which my hon. Friend refers was found, when examined, not to comply with the Rules of the House. In accordance with the usual practice it was, therefore, not submitted to the Committee on Public Petitions, whose function, I would remind my hon. Friend, is to classify and prepare abstracts of Petitions in whatever manner the Committee considers best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents. With regard to the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to what I said on 3rd November last arising out of the statement on Business."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1943; cols. 965–6, Vol. 395.]
All this has arisen through a Petition presented on 2nd November by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). It was received by the House, and then one wondered what would happen. The petitioners asked that they should be heard at the Bar of this Chamber. On 3rd November the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) asked permission to bring forward a Motion dealing with this matter. The whole thing got jumbled up then. The Deputy Prime Minister did not seem to understand what the House had to do in regard to Petitions; no one seemed to know exactly what to do. I happen to occupy a position on the Select Committee to deal with Petitions and I thought my best plan would be to wait a little while and see what happened. When we met about a fortnight later to deal with Petitions I was anticipating, seeing there had been some mistake before, that this might be submitted to us for an examination to find out what should be done with it. When we met one small matter was brought before us which had nothing to do with this question, and so I asked the Chairman whether any reference had been made by the House to the Select Committee in regard to the Petition presented by the old age pensioners. He said that so far as he knew nothing had been done.
Here we are with a Select Committee to deal with Petitions and with no satisfactory answer given to the House and nothing submitted to the Select Committee, and we wonder what is taking place. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to find out what is the position in regard to public Petitions. I have always understood that the public outside, if they were concerned deeply enough, and their Petitions were well founded and showed

that public opinion was behind them, had some kind of redress on the Floor of this Chamber. I think many other people had the feeling that they could in special circumstances come to the Bar of the House to state their case. It appears that for some reason or other that is not allowed at the present time. The only thing of advantage that I have been able to get out of it is a particular word called "desuetude." It is interesting to know what it does mean. It is used; the Deputy Prime Minister made use of it. It means "fallen into disuse." One would have thought the word "disuse" would have met the situation, but it seems that we are using a mystifying word so that the House of Commons cannot know what to do. When a man like myself, who has not had the advantage of what is called a classical education, comes across a word like that he has to look at the dictionary. I went to the dictionary to find out what it meant and try to pronounce it properly. It means "fallen into disuse." So we get the idea now that because the presenting of Petitions has not been followed up for a long time the House of Commons—and when I say the House of Commons I mean the Government of the day—is taking advantage of the opportunity to say that because this right has not been used for a long time it is not prepared to renew it. That is all that I can imagine.
It is my intention to find out exactly what the Government do mean and if it should prove that the Government are trying to let this right lapse because it has not been used lately, but only in times gone by, then it will be for hon. Members to try to revive the right, so that the public may know that they can from time to time claim the attention of the House of Commons. In my view democracy means giving the people some opportunity of voicing their opinions from time to time. This particular Petition was signed by more than 4,000,000 people, electors. They signed forms, gathered them together, and came to the outer precincts of the Commons in the hope that they might get a chance of stating their case before us. Most hon. Members thought they had a right to do so. But it appears they cannot, and I want to find out why a big body of the electorate, with a genuine claim on our attention, with a case that nobody can refute, should not have the chance to put it before us. Is it because we are afraid to hear them, because we


do not want their case brought to the light of day at the Bar of the House of Commons? It appears to me to be so.
In looking through the newspapers yesterday I learned that it was the anniversary of a great statesman of former days, Pym. The anniversary was being celebrated because he fought for the rights of the people. On that account he had enshrined himself in the hearts of the people. One of the things he fought for was the right of the people to state their case at the Bar of the House of Commons. Surely it is not for us in this House to forget the fight that he put up for the liberties of our people. If we do so we shall not be playing our part. I want the Government to recognise that if they wish to win the feelings of the people they must on all occasions give them the opportunity to state their opinions. We cannot drive great public thoughts underground. The best way to deal with these matters is to deal with them openly. Let people have the fullest opportunity to state their case. I believe that if we revive this old practice we shall not be hampered, as some people think, by constant Petitions. The people will only come before us asking us to listen to them when they have a genuine case. I think the Attorney-General is to reply, and I want him to tell us exactly what the legal position is. Will he tell us whether those rights have suffered because of the lapse of time and how we can re-establish them, or whether it was never the practice to have Petitions presented at the Bar of this House?
We were told by the Deputy Prime Minister that there were two mistakes made at the time the hon. Member for Bridgeton presented the Petition, from where he is sitting now. If that is so, the hon. Member should have been instructed as to the proper wording. It is not worthy of this Chamber to do this kind of thing. The petitioners should have been properly instructed, and the Petition could then have been drawn up properly, the two mistakes having been rectified, and an opportunity given to them to come to the Bar of the House and state their case. In bringing this matter forward, I believe I am doing a public service in clearing this whole matter up. If we have not the right for which I am asking, everybody will know

what the position is, and the hon. Member for Bridgeton, his followers and myself can bring the matter forward again. We want to go to our people outside and assure them that when they have agitated for a reform and have brought the matter to the notice of their Members of Parliament, we do all we can for them.

Mr. Maxton: I have very considerable interest in this Petition. Since the presentation of it I have scanned each week the pink paper which intimates when Reports from the Select Committee on Petitions are in the Vote Office. One week I did find a Report from the Select Committee, but when I got it from the Vote Office I found it was some other Petition, which had been presented in a less obtrusive way than is available to Members who present Petitions. I took the very greatest care. These old people came to me and asked for my advice about the preparation of their Petition and the mode of presentation. I had had experience of petitioners coming up against technicalities, so I went to the Vote Office and got the paper that is available and which gives a list of the rules and regulations governing the presentation of Petitions. I studied it and advised the old people as to the steps they should take to bring their Petition properly in order, and I presented them with that paper to guide them in their arrangements. I went and consulted the best technical knowledge available to me in this House. I thought I had taken every conceivable precaution. I have now found, and only through the accident that an hon. Member who was active in the matter is a member of the Select Committee, that the Petition was ruled out of Order. I have had no intimation of that fact, and I learned it only through the fact that the hon. Member is a member of the Petitions Committee. I suppose he only found it out by asking for information.
The Petition was not ruled out of Order by the Select Committee on Petitions, but somewhere between this House and the Committee set up to handle this thing, somebody intervened and said, "This is not going to the place where the House intends Petitions to go." If there are technicalities that we do not understand, that sheet that is presented to us should be brought up to date and put into plain and simple language. There is no need


to stick to the archaic language in the presentation of a Petition if the objective is reasonably clear, and there is no point in insisting upon handwriting when modern typewriting or printing is so much more efficient. I understand now that the subjects upon which citizens can petition are limited and that this particular subject was one that goes beyond the scope. I do not suppose that more than two or three Members of this House know that the limits that apply to a Private Member's Motion apply also to Petitions. It is entirely wrong, and I would like to see in some Statute or rule exactly how that is laid down. I could go on at very considerable length on this point, but I want to hear what the Attorney-General has to say.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that he has performed a public service in raising this question, because it is very desirable that we should all know what we ourselves have laid down. I have in my hand the Order of the House with regard to public Petitions. It can be obtained from the Vote Office and sets the matter out quite clearly. The House may desire to alter it, but these are at present the instructions which the House has given to its officials, servants and Committees on this matter. I will read the two relevant provisions in respect to which the question has arisen over this Petition. The first states:
Every Petition offered to be presented to the House of Commons must begin with the words 'To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled' or with words equivalent thereto.
On the back there is a form of Petition. One of the advantages of this Debate is that many other hon. Members as well as myself will have had this document brought to their attention. From the form on the back it should be easy for anyone who has this document before him. That is the position as to Petitions at present. Those are the Rules that the House has laid down. It can alter them, but till it alters them those are the Rules which have to be carried out.
The next point I ought to deal with is the function of the Committee of which my hon. Friend is a member. One of the questions

which he asked the Deputy Prime Minister suggested that it was part of the function of that Committee to consider whether petitioners should be heard at the Bar of the House. Now, that is not so, as is clear from the terms of reference of that Committee. I will not read the whole of the terms of reference. I have before me the Official Report where it all appears and where my hon. Friend and others were appointed. Among the functions of the Committee are:
to classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information requesting their contents.
and then the number of signatories and the number of addresses, and so on.

Mr. Tinker: My chief point was that the Petition did not arrive. It was not sent to us at all, and we did not know what happened to it.

The Attorney-General: I can only deal with one point at a time. I wanted first to make it quite clear that this Committee has nothing to do with the question as to whether petitioners should be heard at the Bar of the House. Why this particular Petition did not reach the Committee for classification and the making of an abstract was, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, because it did not conform with the Rules. The practice of this Committee and its Clerk has always been that if a Petition does not conform with the Rules which, are laid down by us in imperative mandatory terms it is not referred to the Committee, because it has not brought itself within what we have defined as the proper form and character of Petitions. That is the position.

Mr. Stephen: Who decides that?

The Attorney-General: The Clerk to the Committee.

Mr. Stephen: Does the Clerk not report to the Committee?

The Attorney-General: I am told that he told the President. The practice has been that it is a matter for the Clerk to the Committee to consider. I am only telling the House what has been the practice in these matters. It is one of the advantages of this discussion that if Members think that the practice should be


altered, they can take it up in the proper quarter. The practice has been that if the Clerk is presented with a document which plainly does not conform with these Regulations—I have no doubt that if it was doubtful he would refer it—then it is not a Petition within the meaning of the terms of reference of this Committee.

Mr. Stephen: Surely the Clerk should intimate that to the hon. Member who introduced the Petition.

The Attorney-General: That may be, that is a point. I am simply stating what I understand has been the practice. Anyone concerned can consider it in the light of this.

Mr. Mathers: Should not that intimation have been made before the Petition was presented?

The Attorney-General: The other point I should have referred to, which is very important and which has been referred to by other Members, is this question about public money. This was referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister in his answer. He said that the second reason that it could not be referred was because it involved the expenditure of public money and the consent of the Crown had not been obtained. The first reason was that it was not addressed to the House. Members can go to the Vote Office and get the Order dealing with Petitions. This Order says that no Petition may be made for any grant of public money except with the consent of the Crown, that is to say, if a Member wants to present a Petition involving the expenditure of public money he must get the consent of the proper Minister; that is the Order, that is the Rule. I do not say that it is difficult to get such consent, but that is the Rule. That is another point. The question is that in this case the assent had not been obtained. I do not say it is difficult to get, but that is the step which any of us who wants to present a Petition involving the expenditure of public money must go through, and that was not done in this case.
In regard to the other point, the major point raised by the hon. Member for Leigh, I want to draw a distinction between a discussion on Petitions when they are presented and the question whether the petitioners may be heard at

the Bar of the House. Under the Standing Orders, which have stood for a long time, except in the case of such Petitions complaining of a personal grievance, for which there is an urgent necessity for providing an immediate remedy, then the Speaker can give leave for a discussion, but except in that exceptional case, if a Petition is presented the Standing Orders provide that there shall be no discussion. Those are the Standing Orders. That was found convenient by our predecessors, and I should think will very likely be found convenient to-day. The other question, which is really a different question, but which also has very seldom been granted in recent times, is as to whether the petitioners should be heard at the Bar of the House. That is a matter for the House. It can give leave, but experience on the whole has shown that it is not a useful procedure, but that is entirely a matter for the House on any particular occasion.

Mr. Maxton: Has the House the right to express its opinion on that? On this occasion the House did not get a chance.

The Attorney-General: No doubt somebody could move that.

Mr. Maxton: On the spot?

The Attorney-General: That would be a matter for Mr. Speaker. The House can give leave. Whether you give them leave to be heard forthwith is a matter on which I cannot give an opinion. Maybe it would be a Motion that they be heard on a future occasion. I think the last case was when someone applied to be heard on behalf of the Legislative Council of Newfoundland, on a Bill affecting Newfoundland, and the House said that he could be heard, but on a later occasion, when the Bill was read a Second time. By that time the Government of Newfoundland had composed their differences with the Government here, so it was unnecessary for him to appear. But I think that on that occasion the leave was for a future date.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can my right hon. Friend say what was the last occasion when anyone did appear at the Bar of the House with a Petition?

The Attorney-General: No. The date of the Newfoundland case—when he did not appear—was 1891. I cannot say how


long it is since anyone appeared, but is is a long time—at any rate no one has appeared for 50 years.

Mr. Woodburn: The Standing Orders say, "if a Petition is presented to the House." Are we to understand from what the Attorney-General has said, that no Petition was presented to the House. If so, why was the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) allowed to present something to this House which was not a Petition?

The Attorney-General: If you lay down rules, someone, of course, may present a document and put it forward, honestly and properly, as a Petition, but, according to the rules, you have to say that it is not a Petition.

Mr. Mathers: The same thing happened to me, when I was not allowed to present what was, at that time, the first Petition from the Scottish old age pensioners.

Mr. Woodburn: The point is that all Petitions other than the ones mentioned by the Attorney-General shall be presented to a Committee of this House.

The Attorney-General: If it does not comply with the rules, it is not a document with which the Committee can deal. My time is up; but we can rest satisfied that, on the merits of the question, although the Petition did not come through the normal channels, it has leaked out that it was presented. Indeed, I heard the Minister of Labour referring to it just now.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.